BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2020
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2020 (Pan)
As Amended April 19, 2012
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 4-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Knight, Hagman, Mitchell, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Skinner | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| | | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Mitchell, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Solorio, |
| | | |Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Removes the option of providing urine samples, and
mandates blood tests, for determining the level of drug
intoxication when a person is accused of driving under the
influence of drugs. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the option for persons alleged to be driving under the
influence of drugs to choose a chemical test of his or her
urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his
or her blood. The bill would require blood tests where
available.
2)Requires that if a blood test is unavailable, then the person
is deemed to have given his or her consent to a urine test.
3)Requires that if the person is lawfully arrested for driving
under the influence of a drug or the combined influence of an
alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person only has the
choice of either a blood or breath test. This bill would
delete the option of a urine test, except as required as an
additional test.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or
her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the
alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested
AB 2020
Page 2
for an offense allegedly committed in violation of driving
under the influence. If a blood or breath test, or both, are
unavailable, then the person shall submit to the remaining
test in order to determine the presence, by weight, of alcohol
in the person's blood or if both are unavailable the person
shall submit a urine test.
2)States that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or
her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug
content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an
offense allegedly committed in violation of driving under the
influence.
3)Specifies that the testing shall be incidental to a lawful
arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer
having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a
motor vehicle in violation of driving under the influence.
4)Requires that the person shall be told that his or her failure
to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required
chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment
if the person is convicted of a violation of driving under the
influence, and the suspension of the person's privilege to
operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, the
revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor
vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within
10 years of a separate violation specified driving under the
influence provisions.
5)States that if the person is lawfully arrested for driving
under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the person has
the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood or
breath and the officer shall advise the person that he or she
has that choice. If the person arrested either is incapable,
or states that he or she is incapable, of completing the
chosen test, the person shall submit to the remaining test.
If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then the
person shall submit to the remaining test in order to
determine the presence, by weight, of alcohol in the person's
blood or if both are unavailable the person shall submit a
urine test.
AB 2020
Page 3
6)Provides if the person is lawfully arrested for driving under
the influence of any drug or the combined influence of an
alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person has the choice of
whether the test shall be of his or her blood, breath, or
urine, and the officer shall advise the person that he or she
has that choice.
7)States that a person who chooses to submit to a breath test
may also be requested to submit to a blood or urine test if
the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person
was driving under the influence of a drug or the combined
influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug and if the
officer has a clear indication that a blood or urine test will
reveal evidence of the person being under the influence. The
officer shall state in his or her report the facts upon which
that belief and that clear indication are based. The person
has the choice of submitting to and completing a blood or
urine test, and the officer shall advise the person that he or
she is required to submit to an additional test and that he or
she may choose a test of either blood or urine. If the person
arrested either is incapable, or states that he or she is
incapable, of completing either chosen test, the person shall
submit to and complete the other remaining test.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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
alcohol, drugs, or both.
AB 2020
Page 4
COMMENTS : 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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0003332