BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
5
9
8
SB 598 (Huff)
As Amended April 23, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Vehicle Code
MK:br
VEHICLE: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) ;
IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE
HISTORY
Source: Distilled Spirits Council of the Untied States
Prior Legislation: SB 1190 (Oropeza) - Ch. 392, Stats. 2008
SB 1361 (Correa) - vetoed, 2008
SB 1388 (Torlakson) - Ch. 404, Stats. 2008
AB 2784 (Feuer) - (until August 28, 2008 version)
AB 4 (Bogh) - held Assembly Appropriations 2005
AB 979 (Runner) - Ch. 646, Stats. 2005
AB 638 (Longville) - prior to 7/2/03 amends died on
Concurrence 2003
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate Public Safety,
2003
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Ch. 756, Stats. 1998
Support: The Century Council (to prior version)
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (to prior
version)
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageB
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A SECOND AND THIRD-TIME DUI OFFENDER BE PERMITTED TO GET A
RESTRICTED LICENSE EARLIER IF THEY INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK
DEVICE ON THEIR VEHICLE?
SHOULD A FIRST-TIME DUI OFFENDER BE PERMITTED TO GET A LICENSE WITH
NO TO/FROM WORK OR PROGRAM RESTRICTION IF HE OR SHE SHOWS PROOF OF
INSTALLATION OF A CERTIFIED IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow a DUI offender to get a
restricted license sooner if he or she installs an ignition
interlock device.
Existing law provides it is unlawful for any person who is under
the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the
combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive
a vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152 (a).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person, while
having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood to drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152 (b).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI is subject to the following penalties when given probation:
Possible 48 hours to 6 months in jail;
$390 to $1000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
Completion of a 3-month treatment program or a 9-month
program if the BAC was .20% or more;
Six-month license suspension or 10-month suspension if
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageC
9-month program is ordered; and
A restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of program, proof of financial
responsibility and payment of fees. However, the court may
disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(1); 13352.1; 13352.4; 23538 (a)(3).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI with injury is subject to the following penalties:
16 months, 2 or 3 years in state prison or 90 days to 1
year in county jail;
$390 to $1000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments; and
1 year driver's license suspension.
Or, when probation is given:
5 days to one year in jail;
$390 to $1000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
1 year license suspension;
3-month treatment program or a 9-month program if the
BAC was .20% or more; and
additional penalties that apply to a first DUI without
injury. (Vehicle Code 23554.)
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a second DUI that after
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions:
Proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month
driving-under- the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(3).)
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageD
This bill provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
advise a person convicted of a second DUI for driving while .08%
or above, after the completion of 90 days, of the suspension
period that the person may apply for a restricted license
subject to the above conditions as well as pay a fee sufficient
to cover the cost of the administration of this provision.
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a third DUI that after
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions:
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month
driving-under-the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(5).)
This bill provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
advise a person convicted of a third DUI for driving while .08%
or above that after the initial six months of the driving under
the influence program, of the person's ability to apply for a
restricted license subject to the above conditions, as well as
pays a fee sufficient to cover the cost of the administration of
this provision.
Existing law provides that if a first-offender DUI is found to
have a blood concentration of .20% BAC or above or who refused
to take a chemical test, the court shall refer the offender to
participate in a 9-month treatment program. (Vehicle Code
23538 (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced
to a 9-month program because of a high BAC or a refusal shall
have their license suspended for 10 months. The law further
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageE
provides that the license may not be reinstated until the person
gives proof of insurance and proof of completion of the required
program. (Vehicle Code 13352.1.)
Existing law provides that a person convicted of a first-time
DUI may apply for a restricted license for driving to and from
work and to and from a driver-under-influence program if
specified requirements are met, paying all applicable fees,
submitting proof of insurance and proof of participation in a
program. (Vehicle Code 13352.4.)
This bill provides that if a person convicted of a first DUI
installs an ignition interlock device as well as submitting
proof of insurance, proof of participation in a program and
payment of fees, the person shall receive a license that
indicates he or she may only drive a vehicle with a certified
ignition interlock installed.
This bill has a delayed operative date of July 1, 2010.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
---------------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageF
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageG
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Improving interlock usage rates among hardcore drunk
drivers should be a top priority. We must focus on
measures designed to ensure increased installation rates
among hardcore drunk drivers and tie the interlock
sanction to other, often existing treatment solutions
that will lead to behavior change and long-term
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageH
reductions in recidivism.
Strong laws enabling swift identification, certain
punishment and effective treatment are critical
fundamental elements necessary to reduce the incidence
of hardcore drunk driving and believe that these
elements must be coordinated into a statewide system to
be effective.
2. Earlier Restricted License with Installation of Ignition
Interlock Device
a. Second Offenders
Under exiting law when a person is convicted of a second DUI
he or she faces a license suspension period of 2 years. After
12 months of "hard suspension" where he or she cannot drive at
all, he or she may apply for a restricted license. Generally
the restricted license will be limited to being able to drive
to and from work and to and from the program (Vehicle Code
13352.5) but if he or she installs an interlock device,
enrolls in a drinker driver treatment program and shows proof
of insurance, the restriction is not so limited. (Vehicle
Code 13352.) This bill would shorten the timeframe before a
person could get a restricted license to 90 days if the person
installs and maintains an ignition interlock device on his or
her vehicle in addition to the existing requirements that
include participation in the drinker driver treatment program
and proof of insurance. This bill does not remove the ability
of a person to get a restricted license to and from work and
to and from the program after 12 months.
b. Third Offenders
Under existing law, when a person is convicted of a third DUI,
he or she faces a license suspension period of 3 years. After
12 months of "hard suspension" he or she can apply for a
restricted license if he or she installs an ignition
interlock, enrolls in the required program and gives proof of
insurance. This bill would make that restricted license
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageI
available after six months.
c. First Offenders
Under existing law, a first offender may apply for a license
restriction allowing the person to drive to and from work and
to and from the drinker driver treatment program. First
offenders have their license suspended for either 6 months or
10 months depending on the length of the drinker driver
treatment program they are required to attend. A person may
seek a restricted license to drive to and from work and to and
from the program if he or she shows proof of financial
responsibility, shows proof of enrollment in the program and
pays applicable fees. This bill would allow a person to get a
license that is not limited to and from work and the program
if he or she shows verification of the installation of an
ignition interlock device on his or her car.
SHOULD SECOND AND THIRD-TIME DUI OFFENDERS BE PERMITTED TO GET A
RESTRICTED LICENSE EARLIER IF THEY INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK
DEVICE ON THEIR VEHICLE?
(More)
SHOULD A FIRST-TIME DUI OFFENDER BE PERMITTED TO GET A LICENSE
WITH NO TO/FROM WORK OR PROGRAM RESTRICTION IF HE OR SHE SHOWS
PROOF OF INSTALLATION OF A CERTIFIED IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE?
3. Bill Supported by DMV Study and Recommendation
The premise of this bill, that a person with a DUI can get their
driving privilege returned sooner if they choose to install an
ignition interlock device, is one of the recommendations by DMV
in their report to the Legislature. While the study found the
results "are mixed and somewhat complex regarding the
effectiveness of IIDs in California, IIDs are not the 'silver
bullet' that will solve the DUI problem, but they are effective
in some situations with some offenders." (An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California; Report to the
Legislature of the State of California, in accord with Assembly
Bill 762, Chapter 756, 1998 Legislative Session, September 2004
p. 19.) Specifically the report made a number of
recommendations for effective use of IIDs in California
including the voluntary use of IIDs that this bill contemplates.
Specifically the report stated:
Introduce legislation that would allow repeat DUI
offenders who install an IID to reinstate their driver
licenses early, after serving their APS suspension, or
court-DMV suspension, whichever is shorter.
The results of this study show that second DUI offenders
who serve half of their suspension period, and install
an IID in order to obtain a restricted driver license,
have a lower risk of DUI recidivism than their
counterparts who remain suspended. This supports the
findings of a randomized study of multiple DUI offenders
in Maryland, who installed IIDs in order to reinstate
their driver licenses (Beck et al., 1999). While the
results of both studies generalize only to those repeat
DUI offenders who choose to install an IID, they do
clearly show that interlocks can be effective for repeat
DUI offenders.
(More)
SB 598 (Huff)
PageK
The effectiveness of IIDs could be enhanced by
encouraging more repeat offenders to install an
interlock in order to gain valid driving privileges.
The legislatively-mandated process evaluation showed
that only a small minority of eligible repeat offenders
takes advantage of the current law, which allows them to
obtain a restricted license if they install an IID
(DeYoung, 2002). One way to encourage more repeat
offenders to install interlocks is to shorten their
period of suspension if they install a device.
Currently, repeat DUI offenders receive a one-year APS
suspension upon arrest, and upon conviction receive
another suspension of two years or longer, depending
upon their number of prior DUI convictions. By
requiring repeat DUI offenders to serve only the shorter
APS suspension if they install an IID, it is likely more
repeat offenders will choose to install an interlock.
It is important that a period of license suspension,
such as the term required under APS, remain in effect,
as numerous studies have shown that license suspension
is one of the most effective countermeasures for DUI
offenders. (Id. at 20.)
4. Prior Legislation
As amended April 23, 2009 this bill is identical to SB 1361
(Correa) 2008 which was vetoed by the Governor but passed the
Senate Public Safety Committee 5-0, the Senate Floor 38-1 and
the Assembly Floor 771. It is also identical to the version of
AB 2784 (Feuer) that passed the Assembly Floor 75-1 and Senate
Public Safety 5-0 in 2009.
***************
SB 598 (Huff)
PageL