BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
3
5
3
AB 353 (Cedillo)
As Amended June 16, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: CHECKPOINTS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1614 (Blumenfield) - 2010, part of Budget
Bill-failed Senate Floor
SB 591 (Cedillo) - never heard in Committee,
2005-2006
Support: Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles;
American Civil Liberties Union; AltaMed Health Services
Corporation; California Immigrant Policy Center;
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund;
Centro Latino for Literacy; Cecilia Valdez, Vice Mayor
of San Pablo; Eastmont Community Center; El Concilio;
California League of United Latin American Citizens;
Sacramento League of United Latin American Citizens,
Lorenzo Patino Council; Ed P. Reyes, Los Angeles City
Councilmember; PICO California; Parent Institute for
Quality Education; Services, Immigrant Rights and
Education Network; City of South Lake Tahoe Latino
Affairs Commission; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Jose
Huizar Los Angeles City Councilmember; National Council
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageB
of La Raza; California Public Defenders Association;
Asian Pacific Islander Caucus SEIU, Local 721; National
Korean American Service & Education Consortium; a
number of individuals
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Not relevant
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS BE SEPARATE FROM VEHICLE INSPECTION
CHECKPOINTS?
SHOULD CARS AT A SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT ONLY BE IMPOUNDED UNDER
SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES?
SHOULD A CAR THAT IS IMPOUNDED AT A SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT BE RELEASED
TO THE OWNER OR HIS OR HER AGENT IF A VALID LICENSE AND REGISTRATION
IS SHOWN?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to amend provisions relating to
sobriety checkpoints to focus on DUI violators and other drivers
who have been proven to be dangerous and to limit the impounding
of vehicles of other unlicensed drivers.
Existing law provides that a board of supervisors may, by
ordinance, establish a combined vehicle inspection and sobriety
checkpoint program to check for violations of smog standards and
to identify drivers who are DUI. (Vehicle Code � 2814.1.)
Existing law provides that a driver of a motor vehicle shall
stop and submit to an inspection when signs and displays are
posted requiring that stop. (Vehicle Code � 2814.1(b).)
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageC
This bill separates vehicle inspection checkpoints from sobriety
checkpoints.
This bill provides that California Highway Patrol and the
governing body of a city, county or city and county may adopt an
ordinance or resolution to establish on the highways under its
jurisdiction a sobriety checkpoint program, to identify drivers
who are DUI.
This bill provides that a driver of a motor vehicle shall stop
and submit to an inspection when signs and displays are posted
requiring that stop.
This bill provides that notwithstanding provisions for
impoundment of vehicles, a peace officer or any other authorized
person shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a
sobriety checkpoint established pursuant to this section unless
one of the following applies:
The driver of the vehicle is suspected of driving in
violation of specified driving on a suspended or revoked
license provision or while DUI.
The vehicle is subject to impoundment because it was
used to evade a peace officer.
There is probable cause to believe that the vehicle was
used as a means of committing a public offense other than
being an unlicensed driver.
There is probable cause that the vehicle itself is
evidence of a crime.
The driver of the vehicle is not driving with a valid
driver's license, and none of the following apply:
o The driver is able to obtain a validly
licensed driver to drive the vehicle.
o The driver is able to park or move the vehicle
in a manner that does not impeded traffic or threaten
public safety until a validly licensed driver can
retrieve the car or until the checkpoint ends.
o A peace officer or similarly authorized
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageD
traffic enforcement officer is able to readily and
lawfully remove the vehicle to a place that does not
impede traffic or threaten public safety.
This bill provides that the public entity shall not be liable
for the parking of a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver.
This bill provides that it does not authorize a combined
sobriety and vehicle inspection program.
This bill provides that the registered owner of a vehicle
impounded by the section created under this bill may retrieve
the vehicle the following day after impound upon a showing of
proof of a currently valid driver's license and vehicle
registration.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageE
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Traditionally, sobriety checkpoints are meant to be
used as means to stop intoxicated drivers from
endangering the safety of the public. Despite their
original intent, sobriety checkpoints are increasingly
being used to target drivers that are ineligible to
obtain licenses in order to increase local revenue.
Frequently these checkpoints are set up in the areas
that do not have a high correlation of DUI arrests or
accidents; instead, they are placed in neighborhoods
and, or locations where there are higher populations
of low-income families and communities.
According to a report from the Investigative Reporting
Program of UC Berkeley, "Most of the state's 3,200
roadblocks over the past two years occurred in or near
Hispanic neighborhoods. Sixty-one percent of
checkpoints took place in locations with at least 31
percent Hispanic population. About 17 percent of the
state's checkpoints occurred in areas with the lowest
Hispanic population-under 18 percent." (California
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageF
Watch, Car Seizures at DUI Checkpoints Prove
Profitable for Cities, Raise Legal Questions (2010)).
Also, while impoundments for DUIs are usually
overnight, impoundment for driving without a license
typically last for a term of 30 days. Often, this
effectively results in the forfeiture of the vehicle
because the towing and impoundment fees may well
exceed the value of the vehicle, which is apart from
the fines already paid to local governments.
Together, checkpoints do not act like a deterrent, but
create a financial hardship for low-income families.
With local government revenues shrinking, cities have
begun increasing their revenue by using sobriety
checkpoints to target these communities. This occurs
in two ways. First, local governments often charge
unlicensed drivers fines to get their vehicles
released from impound, averaging more than $150.
Moreover, the second way cities increase revenue is by
taking a portion of the fees that towing operators
charge vehicle owners. This generates hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year. The federal government
provides the California Office of Traffic Safety with
$100 million dollars annually to promote traffic
safety. Thirty million of those dollars are
specifically reserved to fund programs that seek to
limit drunk driving, particularly sobriety
checkpoints. Since grants pay for the officers needed
to manage the checkpoints, local governments only
benefit, without costs, from targeting communities
whose residents are not eligible to obtain licenses.
Due to this, the ratio of drivers caught inebriated
compared to those without licenses is extremely
skewed. In 2009, police impounded more than 24,000
vehicles at checkpoints, roughly seven times higher
than 3,200 drunken driving arrests at roadway
operations.
Lastly, the constitutional legality of impounding
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageG
vehicles is also questionable. In Miranda v. City of
Corneilus (2007), 429 F. 3d 858, the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeal ruled that impounding a vehicle
without a warrant was limited under the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unless pursuant
to a lawful arrest or unless the "community caretaker"
provisions were present, the courts stated that
"impounding legally parked vehicles was unreasonable
seizure when there was not reasonable justification
for removing it." (Jones and Mayer). Also, in a
similar case titled People v. Williams, 145 Cal. App.
4th 756, an appellate court held that depending on the
circumstances, seizing a vehicle pursuant to V.C.
section 2265(h)(1) may be unconstitutional. Due to
these rulings, some police departments have already
changed their approach to impounding, but many still
continue the aforementioned practices. As a result,
there is currently an inconsistent application of
towing and impounding between cities and counties in
California. This bill would make towing and
impounding policies at checkpoints uniform throughout
the state.
2. Focused Sobriety Checkpoints
Under existing law, sobriety checkpoints-law enforcement run
checkpoints set up to look for people driving DUI and to make
people aware of the dangers of driving DUI-are sometimes run
with vehicle inspection checkpoints looking for smog regulation
violations under Vehicle Code Section 2814.1. According to the
author, federal money intended for DUI checkpoints is also
sometimes used for these joint checkpoints. The author argues
that the dual use checkpoints which do not focus exclusively on
DUI dilutes the deterrent impact that DUI checkpoints have been
shown to have. This bill separates out DUI checkpoints from
vehicle inspection checkpoints.
3. Impoundment of Cars for Reasons Other Than DUI at
Checkpoints
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageH
The background from the author outlines issues that have arisen
where checkpoints set up for DUI purposes end up becoming sweeps
of unlicensed drivers and can result in the impoundment of many
cars, which can be a windfall for the community that is
collecting the fines and a portion of the impound costs. These
broad impoundments also dilute the deterrent impact of DUI
checkpoints because the message in the community is not if you
are DUI, your car is impounded; it is that these checkpoints are
set up to impound the cars of people who can't or don't have a
license. This bill intends to rectify that issue and put the
focus of sobriety checkpoints back on DUIs. Under this bill, a
car will only be impounded at a sobriety checkpoint under only
specified circumstances:
The driver is DUI.
The driver has had his or her license suspended because
his or her license was suspended or revoked for reckless
driving; for a DUI; because he or she has been found to be
a habitual traffic offender; or, because he or she refused
to take a chemical test when stopped for DUI.
The vehicle was used for evading a peace officer.
There is probable cause to believe the vehicle was used
in a public offense, not relating to driving without a
license.
There is probable cause to believe that the vehicle
itself tends to show that a crime has been committed or the
vehicle contains evidence that cannot readily be removed,
other than driving without a license.
The driver does not have a valid license and cannot
either obtain a valid license or park the vehicle in a safe
place until a licensed driver can retrieve it.
While a car may not be impounded except for the reasons listed,
a person could still be cited for any violations that may apply.
The author believes the impound authorizations in this bill both
focus on the driver's that are unsafe who may come through a
sobriety checkpoint and are consistent with the community
caretaking and constitutional requirements for removal of
vehicles. In support, the author cites a Legislative Counsel
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageI
opinion he received on May 29, 2007, on Driver's License:
Vehicle Impoundment. In conclusion, the opinion states:
In a situation where there is a lawful stop of a motor
vehicle by a peace officer and the driver is an
unlicensed driver, and the peace officer is unable to
readily and lawfully remove the vehicle to a place
that does not impede traffic or threaten public
safety, or is unable to place the vehicle in a safe
location, a peace officer may be justified in
impounding the vehicle under the community caretaking
function and Sections 14602.6, 14607.6 or 22651.
However, based on the recent cases of Coccia, Miranda
and Williams<1>, if, for instance, following a lawful
stop an appropriate person, other than the unlicensed
driver, possessed a valid driver's license and was
readily available to remove the motor vehicle so that
it did not pose a threat to the flow of traffic or
public safety and could be removed to a safe place and
the peace officer, based on his or her observations,
was confident that
the unlicensed driver would not continue to drive the
vehicle, the impoundment of the vehicle would not
serve a community caretaking function, and therefore
would not be justified.
(More)
----------------------
<1> United States v. Coccia (1st Cir. 2006) 446 F. 3d 233, cert.
denied 166 U.S. 769; Miranda v. City of Cornelius (9th Cir.
2005) 429 F. 3d 858; People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th
756.
It is, therefore, our opinion that if a peace officer
lawfully stops a motor vehicle on the highway and the
driver of the motor vehicle is an unlicensed driver,
that alone is not sufficient justification for the
peace officer to cause the impoundment of the motor
vehicle. In addition to a statutory authorization to
impound under Sections 14602.6, 14607.6 or 22651 of
the Vehicle Code, constitutional restrictions upon the
seizure of property require that the officer have a
justification under the community caretaking doctrine,
as discussed above, in order to validly impound the
motor vehicle.
4. Retrieval in Less Than Thirty Days
This bill provides that if a car is impounded at a sobriety
checkpoint, the car shall be released the following day to the
registered owner or his or her agent if he or she presents a
currently valid driver's license and vehicle registration. This
addresses the issue of cars being held for 30 days and the costs
of such an impound rising to the point of being more than the
car itself is worth. The author believes that this is also
consistent with the community caretaking function of law
enforcement. The car was removed because the driver or the car
posed a danger; and if it is released to a license driver, it no
longer poses that danger.
5. Support
The American Civil Liberties Union states in support of this
bill:
Uniform legal clarity is necessary on when and how
cars can be impounded at sobriety checkpoints.
Without clear guidance, sobriety checkpoints have
turned into gateway for illegal seizures of cars. The
bill codifies Miranda v. City of Cornelius, which is
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that
provides that car that can be safely parked by a
(More)
AB 353 (Cedillo)
PageK
licensed driver will not be impounded under the
"community caretaker provision" and provides a uniform
policy for the number of days a car may be impounded.
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles further
notes:
Statewide statistics show that in 2009, officers
impounded over 24,000 vehicles from sobriety
checkpoints, which was a 53 percent increase from
2007. This is around seven times higher than 3,200
arrests for DUI that occurred at the same checkpoints.
Data like this raises the question of whether the
main purpose of sobriety checkpoints really is to
confront driving.
6. Similar Legislation
This bill makes changes similar to parts of AB 1389 (Allen)
which is also scheduled to be heard on July 5. AB 1389 (Allen)
differs from this bill in that it does not provide for early
recovery of the vehicle; and it also codifies the case of
Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal 3d 1321, which sets forth
guidelines for running sobriety checkpoints in a constitutional
manner.
***************