BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1104
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1104 (Pan) - As Amended: May 4, 2011
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Transportation 14-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires , rather than allows, driver's license
revocations for specified DUI to be delayed until offenders are
released from prison or county jail.
This bill also requires the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation to notify the DMV 30 days prior to the
release of an inmate whose license has been suspended.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant ongoing SF costs, in the range of $625,000 to DMV
for staff-intensive manual sorting of files to determine and
track revocations.
2)Significant one-time SF programming costs of about $325,000 to
DMV.
3)Significant ongoing GF costs, in the range of $250,000, to
CDCR for the staffing, programming and manual sorting
necessary to provide information to DMV.
4)Unknown moderate nonreimbursable increased local incarceration
costs, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue, for
misdemeanor convictions of driving with a revoked license.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends a DUI offender who is in
custody for the duration of his or her license revocation,
AB 1104
Page 2
should not be able to to leave jail or prison and resume
driving.
(Currently the court can delay the revocation; this bill
requires it.)
2)Efficacy of license revocation is unclear . Numerous studies
indicate many DUI offenders continue to drive on a revoked
license, and as such, without insurance.
3)Is judicial discretion to delay license revocation being
abused ? Judges are granted discretion in many instances
because they are familiar with the circumstances of each case
and therefore better situated to make a determination based on
the specific factors, which in the case of this bill might
mean a concurrent suspension based on the particular
circumstances of the case and the offender.
4)It is not clear this bill is procedurally workable as drafted .
First, it limits the tolled revocations to offenders sentenced
to state prison, but the several sections cited include
offenses not punishable by state prison. Moreover, the
abstracts from the courts to DMV do not contain a sentence
destination, just an offense citation, so DMV will be unable
to tell from the abstract whether this bill applies to an
offender.
CDCR does not have any knowledge regarding license revocation.
If CDCR were able to determine this information, through labor
intensive manual sorts and individual queries, it would need
to create a new tracking and reporting system.
Also, assuming the proposed criminal justice realignment is
implemented later this year, many of the targeted offenses
would no longer be eligible for state prison, thereby negating
the impact of the bill's intent.
5)Support . According to the State Sheriffs' Association,
"Currently, the time of imprisonment and the time of the
license revocation overlap. For example, if someone is serving
three months in jail and their license has been revoked for
six months, by the time they served their time in jail they
only have three months left on their license revocation due to
the three months in jail counting for time toward their
license suspension."
AB 1104
Page 3
6)Opposition . According to the Public Defenders Association,
"When a driver is convicted of a DUI and sentenced to jail or
prison the sentencing judge may, but is not required, to order
that a mandatory license suspension shall not commence until
the completion of the incarceration. This bill would require
that the suspension commence only upon release from jail.
While there might be some facial appeal in delaying the
suspension during the time the individual is unable to drive
anyway, there is good reason to retain current law."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081