BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 520
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 520 (Ammiano)
As Amended September 2, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 2, 2011) |SENATE: |31-4 |(September 7, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |4-0 |(September 8, 2011) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
Summary : Allows a person convicted of alcohol-related reckless
driving ("wet reckless") to apply for a restricted license early if
he or she complies with specified requirements, including
installation of an ignition interlock device (IID).
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead:
1)Allow a person convicted of "wet reckless" to apply for a
restricted license after a 90-day suspension, if he or she
installs an ignition interlock on his or her car and complies
with all the other requirements, including proof of financial
responsibility, payment of fees, and satisfactory participation
in a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program.
2)Limit restricted-license eligibility to persons having no more
than two prior alcohol-related convictions within ten years.
3)Require the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to advise eligible
persons of the ability to apply for a restricted license after
completion of a 90-day suspension period.
4)Provide that the restricted-driving privilege remains in effect
for at least the remaining period of the original suspension and
until the driver provides proof of completion of a DUI program.
AB 520
Page 2
5)Require proof of financial responsibility in order to maintain a
restricted license.
6)Require DMV to terminate a restricted license upon notification
from the DUI program that the person has failed to comply with
the requirements of the program.
7)Require DMV to terminate a restricted license upon notification
from an IID installer that the person attempted to tamper with or
remove the IID.
8)Prohibit the holder of a commercial driver's license to obtain a
restricted license if the holder was operating a commercial motor
vehicle at the time he or she committed the violation which
resulted in license suspension or revocation of the his or her
non-commercial driving privilege.
9)Make conforming changes to other Vehicle Code provisions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that it is unlawful for any person under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined
influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
2)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 with a
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 the ability
to seek a restricted license within 12 months.
3)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.
4)Authorizes the court to require that a person convicted of a
first offense DUI install a certified IID on any vehicle that the
person owns or operates and prohibit that person from operating a
motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning,
AB 520
Page 3
certified IID. The court shall give heightened consideration to
applying this sanction to a first offense violator with 0.15% 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 in
Vehicle Code Section 1803(a), of the terms of the restrictions in
accordance with Vehicle Code Section 1804(a). The DMV shall
place the restriction in the person's records in the DMV.
5)Authorizes a person who has been convicted of specified DUI
offenses and who has had his or her driving privilege suspended
or revoked by the court to apply to DMV for a restricted driver's
license if specified conditions are met including that the person
has installed an IID.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill extended the sunset date from
January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2013, for provisions of law giving
the court discretion to impose the term or enhancement that best
serves the interest of justice as required by SB 40 (Romero)
Chapter 3, Statutes of 2007, SB 150 (Wright), Chapter 171, Statutes
of 2009, and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, and
makes other conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
DMV implementation $160 $0 $0 Special*
DMV administration $5** $10** $10** Special*
*Motor Vehicle Account
** Ongoing costs fully offset by fees
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Under current law, persons
with a current DUI who also have a prior DUI have the option to
participate in the Ignition Interlock Device program after 90 days
of license suspension. However, persons with a "wet and reckless"
violation who have a prior DUI do not have this same option to
participate, even though a "wet and reckless" offense is a lower
AB 520
Page 4
offense. AB 520 would simply correct this oversight and allow for
persons with a "wet and reckless" without bodily injury, and who
have a prior DUI, to participate in the Ignition Interlock Device
program after 90 days of license suspension."
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the
Assembly-approved version of this bill was deleted. This bill, as
amended in the Senate, is inconsistent with Assembly actions and
the provisions of this bill, as amended in the Senate have not been
heard in an Assembly policy committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0002841