BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2020
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2020 (Pan) - As Amended: April 19, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires a blood test, rather than providing the
option of a urine test, for determining the level of drug
intoxication when a person is accused of driving under the
influence of drugs. If a blood test is unavailable, or if the
person has hemophilia or is using an anticoagulant for a heart
condition, the person is deemed to have given consent to a urine
test.
(The requirement of a blood test rather than the option of a
urine test, is current law for DUI-alcohol.)
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, likely minor nonreimbursable local costs if blood draws
prove slightly more costly than urine tests. Preliminary
information from several counties indicates that while some
large counties have phlebotomists on site at county jails, other
counties may have to pay for blood draws at local hospitals,
whereas collecting a urine sample requires less expertise. The
impact on peace officer time and attention also does not appear
to be significant.
To the extent blood tests prove more effective than urine tests,
and reduce the number of legal challenges to urine tests, there
could be minor state trial court savings, though to the extent
blood tests prove more effective, there could be additional
local incarceration costs.
There were about 210,000 DUI arrests in 2009. Current
statistical sources do not identify whether the arrest was for
AB 2020
Page 2
alcohol, drugs, or both.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author and sponsor, the California District
Attorneys Association, contend blood tests are more effective
than urine tests for DUI and that allowing the option of a
urine test for DUI-drugs or DUI-drugs-and-alcohol, when that
option is not available to DUI-alcohol, creates a loophole
that advantages DUI-drugs offenders.
According to the author, "Under current law, DUI offenders
suspected of being under the influence of drugs or the
combination of drugs and alcohol can opt for a blood or urine
test. While the urine test used to be an option for those
suspected of driving under the influence of only alcohol, the
test was removed as an option in 1998 because of its
unreliability. However, the test is still an option for those
driving under the influence of drugs or the combination of
drugs and alcohol. This minor loophole results in more DUI
court cases being dismissed because of unreliable urine tests,
and puts the safety of the public at risk. Tighter DUI laws
mean safer citizens and safer communities. AB 2020 is a
necessary piece of legislation to ensure that DUI drug and
combination drug and alcohol offenders can be accurately
prosecuted."
2)Support : According to the California District Attorneys
Association, "Since 1992, California drivers arrested for
DUI-drug have been deemed to have given consent to having
their blood or urine tested to determine their level of
impairment. However, urine tests are widely acknowledged as
an inaccurate and unreliable measure of drug levels in a
person's system. According to the National Institute of Drug
Abuse, urine tests can prove that a driver has recently used a
drug, but cannot distinguish the level of the drug in the
driver's system.?
"Many DUI defense attorneys advise drivers to opt for a urine
test because it is the most unreliable indicator of
drug-related impairment, and thus makes it easier to challenge
in court. As a result, more DUI cases go on trial when a
urine test is used to the ambiguity of the test results. This
has the effect of crowding California's already congested
court system. Urine tests also allow persons who illegally
AB 2020
Page 3
drive while under the influence of drugs to go unpunished due
to the lack of reliable evidence, when a blood test could have
confirmed intoxication?.Taxpayers would be better served by
eliminating the urine test option, thus cutting court costs by
keeping minor DUI cases out of the courtroom."
3)Opposition. According to the California Public Defenders
Association, "When an individual is arrested for driving under
the influence of drugs and alcohol the implied consent law
requires him to submit to a blood or urine test since a breath
test will test for alcohol only. AB 2020 would delete the
option of a urine test for drugs, thus denying the arrestee
any choice and subjecting him to a compulsory blood draw.
"First, this is unnecessary because both scientific literature
and several published court decision have repeatedly and
uniformly held that properly conducted and timely urine tests
can produce forensically reliable measurement of virtually all
drugs in a test subject system. Secondly, Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence has consistently held that blood, breath, or
urine tests are searches, and that invasive searches of the
interior of the body require special justification and a
balancing of need against the medical risk and invasiveness
involved in sticking a needle into someone's vein."
4)Prior Legislation . SB 1890 (Hurtt), Statutes of 1998, deleted
the requirement that a person who is arrested for DUI-alcohol
be offered the choice between a blood and a urine test.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081