BILL ANALYSIS
SB 598
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2009
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Juan Arambula, Chair
SB 598 (Huff) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
SUMMARY : Provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
shall advise a person convicted of a second or third offense of
driving under the influence (DUI) with a blood alcohol content
(BAC) of .08% or more that he or she may receive a restricted
license, as specified, if he or she shows verification of
installation of a certified ignition interlock device (IID) and
pays a fee sufficient to include the costs of administration, as
specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)States for a second offense DUI, the DMV shall notify the
person that he or she may apply for a restricted license, as
specified, after 90 days of suspension if he or she meets the
requirements of existing law and submits proof of a certified
IID. For a third offense, a person may receive a restricted
license after six months of suspension if he or she meets the
requirements of existing law and submits proof of a certified
IID.
2)States if the driver convicted of DUI installs and maintains
an IID and otherwise complies with existing law including
enrollment and participation in DUI classes required by DMV,
the only restriction on his or her license shall be the
requirement to only drive a vehicle with an installed IID, as
specified.
3)States the provisions of this bill shall become operative on
July 1, 2010.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the court to require that a person convicted of a
first offense violation of DUI and DUI causing bodily injury
to install a certified IID on any vehicle that the person owns
or operates and prohibits that person from operating a motor
vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning,
SB 598
Page 2
certified IID. The court shall give heightened consideration
to applying this sanction to a first-offense violator with
0.20% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at
arrest, or with two or more prior moving traffic violations,
or to persons who refused the chemical tests at arrest. If
the court orders the IID restriction, the term shall be
determined by the court for a period not to exceed three years
from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the DMV,
as specified, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance
with existing law. The DMV shall place the restriction in the
person's records in the DMV. [Vehicle Code Section
23575(a)(1).]
2)Requires the court where a person convicted of a violation of
driving on a suspended license where the suspension is the
result of DUI to install an IID on any vehicle that the person
owns or operates and prohibits the person from operating a
motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with a
functioning, certified IID. The term of the restriction shall
be determined by the court for a period not to exceed three
years from the date of conviction. [Vehicle Code Section
23575(a)(2).]
3)States the court shall advise the person that installation of
an IID on a vehicle does not allow the person to drive without
a valid driver's license. [Vehicle Code Section 23575(c).]
4)States a person whose driving privilege is restricted by the
court pursuant to this section shall arrange for each vehicle
with an IID to be serviced by the installer at least once
every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and
monitor the operation of the device. The installer shall
notify the court if the device is removed or indicates that
the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the
device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply
with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the
IID. There is no obligation for the installer to notify the
court if the person has complied with all of the requirements
of this article. [Vehicle Code Section 23575(d).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Only a small
SB 598
Page 3
percentage of people convicted of multiple DUIs are required
by court to install an IID on their vehicles to discourage
recidivism. Senate Bill 598 will increase the use of ignition
interlocks among repeat offenders while they are in treatment
and will reduce the incidence of driving while on a suspended
license. The measure provides one more tool to proactively
fight drunk driving."
2)Existing Law Related to IID and DUI : An IID is a
"sophisticated breath-testing device that is connected to the
ignition system of a vehicle. When the device detects a
pre-set level of alcohol in a breath sample, presumably
provided by the driver, it prevents the vehicle from being
started by blocking electrical power to the starter."
[Robertson et al., Between the Lines: About Alcohol Ignition
Interlocks, (2007) 16 American Prosecutors Research Institute
1.]
Current law authorizes use of an IID where the court feels it is
appropriate. Vehicle Code Section 23575 relates specifically
to the use of IIDs under specified circumstances and states
the court may require that a person convicted of a
first-offense violation of DUI to install a certified IID on
any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibits
that person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is
equipped with a functioning, certified IID. The court is
required to give heightened consideration to a high BAC or
multiple moving violations in applying the IID requirement to
a first offender. If the offender is required to install an
IID, the length of time shall be determined by the court and
may not exceed three years. [Vehicle Code Section
23575(a)(1).]
In 1998, the Legislature required the court to order an IID on
every offender convicted of driving on a suspended license
where the suspension was the result of a prior DUI conviction.
The term of restriction may be set by the court not to exceed
three years. Prior to last year, the court notified the
defendant of his or her responsibility to install an IID. The
defendant is required to bring the vehicle in to service the
IID every 60 days to recalibrate and monitor the device. If
the defendant fails three or times to service the device or in
any way tampers with the device, the installer must notify the
court. [AB 762 (Torlakson), Chapter 756, Statutes of 1998;
Vehicle Code Section 23575(b); but see AB 1388 (Torlakson),
SB 598
Page 4
Chapter 404, Statutes of 2008.] Under these provisions of
law, it is possible a defendant may be ordered to install the
IID as a condition of probation, meaning the defendant may
suffer a violation of probation and additional jail time if he
or she does not comply.
Any attempt to remove, bypass or tamper with an IID is deemed
unlawful and, as such, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to
six months in the county jail and/or a fine of not more than
$1000. [Vehicle Code Section 23247(d); Penal Code Sections 15
and 19.] Included in the definition of "bypass" is failing to
retest while the car is motion three consecutive times.
[Vehicle Code Section 23575(o)(1) and (2).]
3)License Suspension and Revocation : Currently, DUI results in
license suspension or revocation under certain circumstances.
The length of time of suspension or revocation depends on a
number of prior convictions and is listed in other code
sections. Vehicle Code Section 13352 is the general statute
regarding license suspension or revocation for DUI and speed
contest and states, in relevant part, "The department [DMV]
shall immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person
to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of
the record of a court showing that the person has been
convicted of [driving under the influence and speed contest]."
[Vehicle Code Section 13352(a).] Below is a description of
various license suspension terms and conditions for those
arrested or convicted of DUI or DUI causing great bodily
injury.
a) First Offense : When a person is convicted of DUI
without injury as a first offense, except under certain
circumstances, the person's license shall be suspended for
six months. This means unless the person meets other
criteria, he or she may not operate a motor vehicle for
that period of time. [Vehicle Code Section 13352(a)(1).]
The privilege to drive may only be reinstated, as defined in
other statutes, if the person shows proof of financial
responsibility and has completed the DUI program offered by
the DMV, as specified. However, enrollment and completion
of the course must occur after the conviction. [Vehicle
Code Section 13352(a)(1).]
When a person is convicted of DUI causing bodily injury, the
SB 598
Page 5
privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for
one year. Again, the privilege may only be reinstated if
he or she can show proof of financial responsibility and
successful completion of a DUI program. [Vehicle Code
Section 13352(a)(2).]
When a person is arrested (before conviction) for DUI as a
first offense, existing law allows the DMV to suspend his
or her license immediately. [Vehicle Code Section
13353.2(a)(1).] The period of suspension for a first
offense is four months assuming the driver did not refuse a
chemical test, as specified. [Vehicle Code Section
13353.3(b)(2).] Notwithstanding that provision, if a
first-time DUI arrestee shows proof of enrollment in a DUI
program and is 21 years of age or older, he or she may get
a restricted license after 30 days. A restricted license
means the driver may only drive to and from specific
places, such as the DUI program, work and/or school.
[Vehicle Code Section 13353.7(a).] The restriction shall
be in effect for a period of five months. [Vehicle Code
Section 13353.7(a)(3).]
b) Second Offense : A person convicted of DUI as a second
offense shall have his or her license suspended for a
period of two years. [Vehicle Code Section 13352(a)(3).]
The privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be reinstated
with restriction after one year where the person show proof
of financial responsibility, enrollment in a DUI program
and proof of installation of an IID. [Vehicle Code section
13352 (a)(3)(A) to (F).]
When a person is convicted of a second offense DUI with
injury, his or her license is suspended for three years
although he or she may get a restricted license after one
year upon a showing of proof of financial responsibility,
enrollment in a DUI class and proof of installation of an
IID. [Vehicle Code Section 13352(a)(4).]
A person who has been previously convicted of DUI and is
arrested again for DUI shall have his or her license
suspended for a period of one year. [Vehicle Code Section
13353.3(b)(2).]
c) Multiple Offenses : A person convicted of DUI for a
third offense shall have his or her license suspended for a
SB 598
Page 6
period of three years. A person may receive a restricted
license after one year if he or she shows proof of
financial responsibility, enrolls in a DUI class and shows
proof of installation of an IID. [Vehicle Code Section
13352 (a)(5).] If convicted of a third offense of DUI with
injury, a person's license to operate a motor vehicle shall
be suspended for a period of five years with the ability to
get a restricted license if he or she demonstrates, among
other things explained above, proof of installation of an
IID. [Vehicle Code Section 13352(a)(6).] If a person is
convicted of a DUI for a fourth offense, he or she shall
receive a license suspension for a period of four years.
He or she may also get a restricted license after one year
if he or she shows proof of, among other things,
installation of an IID. [Vehicle Code Section
13352(a)(4).] This bill creates an incentive by
authorizing the return of a person's license after 90 days
of restriction on a second offense DUI and after six months
on a third offense DUI if the offender installs an IID.
Otherwise, he or she would have to wait two years on a
second offense and three years on a third offense.
4)Driving on a Suspended License : When a person is convicted of
DUI, he or she may not take the necessary steps to re-instate
his or her license. Hence, when that person is apprehended
driving again, he or she faces the additional misdemeanor of
driving on a suspended license when the suspension is the
result of a DUI. If an offender's license is suspended for
reasons relating to DUI, the penalty upon conviction is more
severe than for reasons not related to DUI. A person who
operates a motor vehicle when his or her license is suspended
for DUI is punished as follows: for a first offense, the
court shall sentence an offender to not less than 10 days and
not more than six months in county jail and a fine of not less
than $300 and not more than $1,000. If the court grants
probation, the court must sentence the offender to a term of
10 days in county jail as a condition of probation; for a
second or subsequent offense committed within five years, the
court shall impose a sentence of not less than 30 days in
county jail and not more than one year and by a fine of not
less than $500 and not more than $2,000. If the court grants
probation, the court must sentence the offender for a period
of 30 days. If an offender is convicted of a second or
subsequent offense within seven years but over five years and
the court grants probation, the court must sentence the
SB 598
Page 7
offender to a term of 10 days in county jail as a condition of
probation. [Vehicle Code Section 14601.2(d) to (g).]
Existing law also allows the DMV to suspend a person's license
for failing to provide a chemical or breathe test upon request
by a peace officer. The penalties for operating a motor
vehicle on a suspended license when the suspension is based on
a refusal to submit to a chemical test are as follows: for a
first offense, a court may sentence for a term of not more
than six months in the county jail, a fine of not less than
$300 and not more than $1,000 or by both imprisonment and
fine; an offender convicted of second or subsequent offense
within five years must be sentenced to a minimum of 10 days
and not more than one year in county jail and by a fine of not
less than $5,000.
5)Other States and the Federal Government : New Mexico passed
the nation's first mandatory IID law for all DUI offenses in
2005. Forty-three states allow courts to apply IIDs where
they deem appropriate, including California. Since 2005,
three other states, Arizona, Louisiana and Illinois, have also
passed mandatory IID laws and several other states have
mandatory IID laws pending. According to USA Today, New
Mexico passed the law as a response to statistics that showed
a high rate of DUI fatalities. "New Mexico, which ranks sixth
in the nation in the rate of alcohol-related car fatalities,
is becoming one of the toughest enforcers. There are 3000
interlocks on cars in the state, the highest per capita of any
state." [Nasser, States Turn on to Idea of Ignition Locks,
USA Today (June 23, 2005);
.]
However, one article suggests that more than 50% of people
who are supposed to install IIDs have not done so.
[Addressing Loopholes with New Mexico's Ignition Interlock
Law, .]
One report from the Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation studied the success of IIDs in New Mexico and
concluded, "The study provides evidence that interlocks are as
effective with first offenders (approximately 60% reduction in
recidivism when on the vehicle) as they are for multiple
offenders." [Voas, et al., Interlocks for First Offenders:
Effective?, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
(July 27, 2007).] It is unknown from the report what level of
SB 598
Page 8
peer review has occurred before or after publication.
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation stated in its report
that "IIDs have a place in preventing recidivism, but some
have also suggested that better results could be achieved by
disaggregating offenders for more individualized treatment.
In controlled studies, IIDs work in the short term, while they
are on the car, but it appears that there is not any long-term
behavioral effect." The report also suggests that to defray
to costs of IIDs, a dollar-for-dollar reduction in fines
associated with license reinstatement or court costs might be
advisable. [Executive Summary: Ignition Interlock Devices and
Vehicle Immobilization, Summer 2003;
.]
The Arizona Legislature passed its mandatory IID law in June
2007 but has since sought a repeal of the statute. The
Arizona Star reported, "Saying they made a mistake, state
representatives voted Tuesday to repeal the newly enacted law
requiring motorists convicted of any drunk-driving offense to
install an ignition interlock device. But the interlock
requirement has already been signed by the Governor, and
backers say it's too late for the House to change its mind.
The voice vote in the House on the amendments to SB 1582 came
after Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he and his
colleagues were acting on incomplete and in some cases,
incorrect, information when concluding last month that
requiring interlocks will cut down on accidents . . . . "
[Fischer, AZ House Backpedals, Asks Repeal of Tougher DUI Law,
Arizona Star (June 13, 2007); .] Arizona appears to have enacted its mandatory IID law
effective January 1, 2009. [Ariz. Transportation Code Section
28-1461(1)(a).]
The Federal Government forcibly expressed its preference for
IIDs in 1998 with the passage of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century. Relevant provisions state, "Repeat
intoxicated driver law. The term 'repeat intoxicated driver
law' means a State law that provides, as a minimum penalty,
that an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense
for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence
after a previous conviction for that offense shall . . . be
subject to the impoundment or immobilization of each of the
individual's motor vehicles or the installation of an ignition
interlock system on each of the motor vehicles . . . . " [23
SB 598
Page 9
U.S.C. Section 164(a)(5)(B).] As evidenced by the title for
the section, the recommendation on IIDs was reserved only for
subsequent DUI offenders. The Federal Government did pass
legislation tying this provision to highway funds, but
California is in compliance because California has provisions
that authorize the court to mandate an IID where appropriate
and any person who wants to receive a restricted license after
a second or subsequent conviction for DUI or any person
convicted of driving on a suspended license, as specified,
must install an IID.
6)The Technology of Ignition Interlock Devices : Although IID
technology has been in use since the 1960's, recent
technological advances have made use of the device easier and
more reliable. A published 2002 report of the University of
Pittsburg School of Law further explains the technology of
IIDs, "Ignition interlocks employ one of two basic types of
sensors to measure the breath alcohol concentration 'BrAC': a
semiconductor sensor or an electrochemical sensor. Each type
of sensor has its relative advantages and disadvantages,
although both types are commercially available. The
semiconductor sensor, also called a solid-state or Taguchi
sensor, measures alcohol by detecting the change in electrical
resistance of a circuit exposed to volatile hydrocarbons. The
major advantages of this sensor are its accuracy, low price,
and its durability. However, this sensor suffers from two
significant drawbacks. First, the device requires frequent
calibration. Second, the device is not specific to alcohol.
Many hydrocarbons including motor vehicle exhaust and even
cigarette smoke affect the response. Either of these
drawbacks may produce an unacceptably high frequency of false
positive readings, which greatly hinders the efficacy of the
interlock program. False positive readings unjustly prevent
the driver from operating the vehicle, and they prevent the
program supervisor from determining whether the operator is
attempting to drink and drive. The electrochemical or fuel
cell sensor overcomes both these drawbacks. An
electrochemical sensor measures alcohol concentration by
detecting the electrical current generated by the oxidation of
alcohol.
"This sensor has greater stability in calibration, which reduces
maintenance requirements. More importantly, the device is
specific to ethyl alcohol, thereby greatly reducing false
positives. Its relative disadvantage is its higher cost.
SB 598
Page 10
While both the semiconductor and fuel cell sensor technologies
have clear relative advantages and disadvantages, either type
of sensor can perform satisfactorily. This is because an
ignition interlock's usefulness does not depend on its ability
to make precise distinctions in BAC levels. Its purpose is
simply to determine whether a person's BAC is above or below a
preset lockout limit.
"As the fundamental purpose of the ignition interlock is to
prevent an intoxicated person from operating a vehicle, the
BAC cutoff is usually safely set to a small, non-zero value,
typically 0.025%. This small level compensates for drift in
the zero-point calibration value, thereby greatly reducing
false positives, while, at the same time, minimizing the risk
of an alcohol-impaired driver operating a vehicle.
"In addition to advances in alcohol sensor technology, there
have been improvements in the prevention of interlock
circumvention and tampering. Circumvention or tampering
refers to any attempt to bypass the ignition interlock through
mechanical or electrical means, or by providing a bogus air
sample. A key tool in hampering attempts to bypass the
interlock is a data recorder.
"A data recorder documents all uses of the vehicle as well as
all attempts to circumvent or tamper with the device. Among
the parameters recorded are: date and time of vehicle use,
pass/fail records, BrAC levels, all attempts to disengage the
device, and maintenance records. A means for backing up the
data is necessary in case of power interruption. Along with
the data recorder, another anti-circumvention feature is the
'rolling retest' requirement. This requires the driver to
supply another breath sample between 5 and 30 minutes after
starting the vehicle. The rolling retest is the most
effective means to thwart circumvention of the interlock by
having a surrogate provide a breath sample at the curb.
Failure of the rolling retest does not risk catastrophe by
disabling the vehicle. The data recorder merely logs the
failure. Additional appropriate action might include flashing
the headlights, setting off an alarm, or locking out the
driver unless she reports to a service center after a
specified number of days. [Neugebauer, Alcohol Ignition
Interlocks: Magic Bullet or Poison Pill? University of
Pittsburg Journal of Technology Law and Policy, Spring 2002;
See also, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
SB 598
Page 11
Review of Technology to Prevent Alcohol Impaired Crashes, July
2007, (hereinafter NHTSA report).]
A more recent study conducted by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) described one form of
technology, tissue spectroscopy, "Spectroscopes are devices
that measure the proportion of a beam of light that is
absorbed or reflected by a sample at various wavelengths. The
concentration of ethanol in tissue changes its absorption of
near-infrared (NIR) light at certain wavelengths. This
phenomenon allows estimation of BAC by measuring how much
light has been absorbed at particular wavelengths from a beam
of NIR reflected from the tissue of the subject. Infrared
light easily penetrates several millimeters of tissue; hence
the reflected signal reveals information about the tissue to
that depth. This makes NIR reflectance spectroscopy
relatively insensitive to contaminants on the surface of the
skin. Because the reflected spectrum is affected by many
other chemicals present in the skin, the estimation relies on
a complex statistical process called a partial-least squares
model.
"The accuracy of a statistical estimation process depends on the
quantity and quality of the input data, which is a function of
the number of different wavelengths that are measured and the
number of times each is sampled. Data quality is affected by
physical properties of the detector, such as bandwidth, noise,
linearity, and stability. Achieving narrow bandwidths at low
cost is particularly challenging. Reducing the size, cost,
and measurement time of the tissue spectrometer while
maintaining data quality will require a substantial effort in
technology development, testing, and refinement. There are
also physiological questions that must be resolved. The soft,
thin skin on the underside of the forearm works well for
reflectance spectroscopy. Little is known about the
reflectance characteristics of the thicker, tougher skin of
the palms and fingers, or perfusion rates in various parts of
the hand, or the effects of the bones that lie close to the
skin. Initial published data comparing estimates of BAC made
with tissue spectroscopy against true BAC show excellent
correlation. These results represent levels of accuracy,
sensitivity, and specificity to ethanol that are far superior
to other known methods of measuring alcohol impairment that do
not involve extraction of bodily fluids. Testing of a
SB 598
Page 12
prototype by the Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Sheriff's
Department will begin in the autumn of 2007. (NHTSA at
Executive Summary, xi.)
The NHTSA report also states, "The breath-alcohol ignition
interlock device (BAIID) is an aftermarket product hardwired
into the ignition circuit of a vehicle that prevents starting
until a breath sample has been given, analyzed for ethanol
content, and found to be below programmed limits. Currently,
about a third of repeat-DUI offenders are using interlocks,
along with a very small fraction of first offenders.
Collectively, there are only about 100,000 units in use, as
compared with more than one million DUI arrests per year.
BAIIDs have been found to reduce DUI recidivism by 40 percent
to 90 percent in various studies. However, crash rates for
interlock users are higher than for nonusers, because the
latter have their licenses revoked and tend to drive less and
with particular effort to avoid police attention. Best
available data indicates that the crash rates of the interlock
users are essentially equal to those of average drivers.
"The low rate of use of BAIIDs is mostly the result of
institutional factors, rather than shortcomings in the
technology. However, technology improvements over the next
decade are likely to decrease costs and inconvenience to users
by extending the interval between visits to have the BAIID
serviced. Solid-state breath alcohol monitors are sold as
screening devices and have been proposed for primary
interlocks. They lack the accuracy and ethanol-specificity of
fuel cells, but have substantial advantages in terms of size,
cost, and power consumption, especially for installation in a
cell phone or a key fob. Recently developed solid-state
detectors are claimed to have much better accuracy and
specificity than the tin-oxide cells (Taguchi cells, named
after the inventor) found in most screening devices in current
use. Some of the prototypes for primary interlocks developed
in Sweden use these new technologies, but details are
proprietary, as are data on the accuracy and reliability of
these devices. The Swedish government is considering making
them." (NHTSA at Executive Summary, ix.)
7)Report of the DMV on the Effectiveness of IIDs : Commissioned
by the Legislature in AB 762 (Torlakson), Chapter 756,
Statutes of 1998, the DMV released two reports regarding the
implementation and effectiveness of IIDs in California. In
SB 598
Page 13
commenting on the use IIDs for first-time offenders, the
report concluded, "The results of this outcome study clearly
show that IIDs are not effective in reducing DUI convictions
or incidents for first DUI offenders, even those with high
BACs at arrest. While their high blood alcohol levels suggest
that they are an alcohol-dependent population, ignition
interlock does not appear to be the answer in reducing their
drinking and driving risk. This conclusion finds support in a
study that interviewed drivers, and found that first offenders
were more hostile to interlocks and regarded them as less
useful, compared to repeat offenders (Baker, 1998). Because
there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic
safety measure for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices
should not be emphasized, even for those first offenders with
high BACs at the time of arrest, as is currently done in
California Vehicle Code Section 23575(a)(1)." [Department of
Motor Vehicles, An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition
Interlock in California (hereinafter DMV Report) (September
2004).]
However, the DMV Report does recommend introduction of
legislation that would allow repeat DUI offenders who install
IIDs to reinstate their driver's licenses early after serving
their APS suspension or court-ordered DMV suspension. The DMV
Report states, "The results of this study show that second DUI
offenders who serve half of their sentence suspension period,
and install an IID in order to obtain a restricted driver
license, have a lower risk of DUI recidivism that 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 offenders." (DMV Report at 18.)
Finally, the DMV Report suggests, "One way to encourage more
repeat offenders to install interlocks is to shorten their
period of suspension if they install the 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
SB 598
Page 14
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." (DMV Report at 18.) The evidence seems to
suggest that IIDs are only effective when they are actually
installed rather than just required. By providing an
opportunity to drive earlier, more offenders will actually
install the IID. The provisions of this bill are supported by
the findings of DMV.
8)Argument in Support : According to the Distilled Spirits
Council of the United States , "Hardcore drunk drivers account
for the majority of alcohol-involved traffic fatalities.
Crash data shows that drivers with a BAC of .05 or above are
380 time more likely to be involved in a fatal crash that the
average non-drinking driver. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2007, drivers with a
BAC of .15 or above accounted for approximately 54 percent of
the alcohol-involved fatal crashes in California. Studies
have revealed that many offenders who are required to install
an interlock simply so not do so. In fact, only about 20% of
the offenders ordered to install interlocks in the U.S. have
actually complied with this order. This scenario occurs due
to inadequate compliance monitoring and poorly administered
interlock programs. All too often, interlocks are not
integrated into a comprehensive set of sanctions aimed at
rehabilitating the DUI offenders. Research shows that
interlocks are an effective deterrent while the device is on
an offender's car, but unless the interlock device is used in
tandem with the other solutions, such as assessment and
treatment, it is unlikely to result in long-term behavior
changes.
"Based on this information, SB 598 would help improve interlock
usage rates among hardcore drunk drivers. Under the proposed
amendments, SB 598 would allow some drivers, if they elect to
install the device to have their restricted license issued to
them sooner. We believe that 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."
SB 598
Page 15
9)Related Legislation : AB 91 (Feuer) establishes a three-county
pilot program within the DMV that requires a person convicted
of DUI to install an IID, as specified, on all vehicles he or
she owns or operates and to participate in a county alcohol
and drug problem assessment program, as specified.
10)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2784 (Feuer), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required a person convicted of DUI, as
specified, to install an IID, as specified, in order to be
reissued a license, receive a restricted license, or
receive a reinstated license. AB 2784's provisions were
removed from that bill in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations and replaced with the provisions of SB 1361.
AB 2784 was gutted, amended into an unrelated bill, and
subsequently vetoed.
b) SB 177 (Migden) of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have, among other things, recast and revised
provisions of law authorizing restricted licenses and
imposing additional requirements with respect to IIDs on
those restricted licenses and established the IID
Assistance Fund in the State Treasury. SB 177 was never
heard by the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
c) SB 1361 (Correa), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required installation of an IID, as specified,
for all offenders convicted of a DUI under certain
conditions. Those conditions included where there is a
high BAC for a first offender and for a second or
subsequent offender. SB 1361's provisions amended relevant
portions of the Vehicle Code to authorize the DMV to
reinstate the offender's license earlier than provided in
existing law if he or she shows proof of installation of an
IID. SB 1361 was vetoed.
d) SB 1388 (Torlakson), Chapter 404, Statutes of 2008,
required that a person immediately install a certified IID
on all vehicles he or she owns or operates for a period of
one to three years when he or she has been convicted of
violating specified provisions relating to DUI and driving
a motor vehicle when his or her license has been suspended
or revoked as a result of a DUI-related conviction.
SB 598
Page 16
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California DUI Lawyers
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744