BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
8
9
5
SB 895 (Huff)
As Amended April 6, 2010
Hearing date: April 13, 2010
Vehicle Code (URGENCY)
MK:mc
VEHICLES: DRIVER'S LICENSE: SUSPENSION
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 598 (Huff) - Ch. 193, Stats. 2009
Support: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF LEGISLATION
PASSED LAST YEAR TO ALLOW A PERSON CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE (DUI) TO GET A RESTRICTED LICENSE AFTER A SPECIFIED PERIOD
OF TIME IF HE OR SHE INSTALLS AN IGNITION INTERLOCK, WHETHER THE
SUSPENSION OF HIS OR HER LICENSE IS A COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE
SUSPENSION?
PURPOSE
The intent of this bill is to correct a drafting error in a law
passed last year to allow a person convicted of DUI to get a
(More)
SB 895 (Huff)
PageB
restricted license after a specified period of time if he or she
installs an ignition interlock device on his or her vehicle.
Existing law that will become operative on July 1, 2010,
authorizes a person who has been convicted of specified driving
under the influence (DUI) offenses and has had his or her
driving privilege suspended or revoked by the court to apply to
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a restricted driver's
license if specified conditions are met including that the
person has installed an ignition interlock device (IID).
(Vehicle Code 13352, 13352.5, 23109, 23550, 23550.5, 23552,
23566, and 23568.)
Existing law provides that the DMV shall suspend the driving
privilege of a person if the person was driving with a blood
alcohol level of .08% or more, or if the person was under 21
years of age and blood alcohol of 0.01% or more. If the person
has had a prior driving in excess of the blood alcohol limits
within 10 years, the length of suspension shall be for 24 months
with ability to seek a restricted license within 12 months.
(Vehicle Code 23542.)
Existing law provides that an order to suspend a person's
driving privilege by DMV shall become effective 30 days after
the person is served with notice and specifies how long the
suspension of the driving privilege shall last. (Vehicle Code
13353.3.)
This bill clarifies that the DMV suspension shall terminate if
the person has been convicted of the violation arising out of
the same occurrence and the person is eligible for a restricted
license upon the installation of an ignition interlock device
and meets all other applicable conditions of a suspended
license.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
(More)
SB 895 (Huff)
PageC
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
(More)
SB 895 (Huff)
PageD
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The
state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger
almost three years ago continues to this day,
California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and
inmates in the California prison system continue to
languish without constitutionally adequate medical and
mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 895 is a clean-up measure needed in order to clarify
the goal of SB 598 (Huff) from 2009 regarding restricted
driver's license changes.
The intent of SB 598 was to apply the restricted
driver's license changes to both the administrative and
criminal suspension of DUI conviction.
The way the measure was drafted, however, the changes
are only applied to the criminal suspension side of the
process. A DUI offender who has had his driving
privilege suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles
would still be required to serve out the one-year
suspension.
Existing law that will become operative on July 1, 2010,
authorizes a person who has been convicted of a DUI
offense who has had her driving privilege suspended or
revoked to apply to the DMV for a restricted driver's
license, if certain conditions, including that the
person has installed an ignition interlock device, are
met.
Existing administrative law requires DMV to immediately
suspend the driving privilege of a person under certain
circumstances.
SB 895 will require the one-year administrative
suspension to terminate if the person has been convicted
of a violation arising out of the same occurrence and
the person meets specified conditions.
(More)
SB 895 (Huff)
PageF
Due to the fact that SB 598 from 2009 becomes operative
July 1, 2010, SB 895 declares that it is to take effect
immediately as an urgency statute.
2. Intent to Allow a Restricted License Sooner With IID
Installation
The intent of SB 598 (Huff) (Chapter 193, Statutes. 2009) was to
allow a person to serve a shorter restricted license period upon
the installation of an ignition interlock device (IID). While
the law prior to SB 598 taking effect allows a person to get a
restriction after 12 months, the idea was to shorten that time
frame and get more people driving with a valid yet restricted
license. Because of the confusing nature of the cross over
between the administrative license suspension and the court
license suspension, there were drafting errors in the bill that
still required the person to serve their entire 12 month DMV
suspension even if that suspension went beyond the post
conviction suspension time in SB 598. This bill corrects that
error by saying the administrative suspension will end when the
requirements of SB 598 are met. The reality is many DUI
offenders that fall under this bill and its predecessor will
still end up serving close to, if not the full DMV
administrative suspension because they are repeat offenders.
Unless they offer a plea right away these cases can take months
before they go to trial or a plea is entered.
3. Urgency
SB 598 takes effect on July 1, 2010. SB 895 contains an urgency
clause to take effect immediately. Hopefully, the confusion
raised by the drafting error does not delay the implementation
of SB 598 as it was intended.
***************
SB 895 (Huff)
PageG