BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
5
5
AB 2552 (Torres) 2
As Amended May 2, 2012
Hearing date: June 26, 2012
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE:
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Peace Officers' Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association; California Narcotic
Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE PROVISIONS ON DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS BE RECAST?
(More)
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to recast the provisions on driving
under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who is
under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under
the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to
drive a vehicle. (California Vehicle Code � 23152(a).)
Existing law provides it is unlawful for any person who has 0.08
percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to
drive a vehicle. For purposes of this article and Section
34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is
based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In any prosecution
under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or
her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had
0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood
at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving. (California Vehicle Code � 23152(b).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who is
addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This
subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in
a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of
Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (California
Vehicle Code
� 23152(c).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who has
0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood
to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section
15210. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a
rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more,
by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving
(More)
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageC
the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight,
of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of
a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
(California Vehicle Code
� 23152(d).)
This bill revises and recasts provisions related to driving
under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or the combination of
drugs and alcohol by separating the provisions into three
distinct sections and subsections:
Driving under the influence of alcohol.
Driving under the influence of drugs.
Driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
(More)
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageD
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
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
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. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
(More)
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageE
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
(More)
According to the National Highway Traffic
Administration's (NHTSA) "National Roadside Survey of
Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers" based on random road
checks, found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at
night were on various legal and illegal impairing
drugs.
Based on data from NHTSA, 30 percent of all drivers who
were killed in motor vehicle crashes in California in
2010 tested positive for legal and/or illegal drugs.
The percentage of the cases has been increasing since
2006.
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reported
that drug use in California fatal crashes is rising.
According to OTS, in 2009, 1,458 California drivers
were killed in crashes, of which 1,173 were tested for
drugs after death. The federal government reports that
339 tested positive for "drug involvement," or 23
percent of all drivers.
Drug-impaired driving is often under-reported and
under-recognized and toxicology testing is expensive.
Additionally, because there is not established
impairment level for drugs, prosecuting drug impaired
driving cases can be difficult.
Under current law, all individuals arrested for driving
under the influence are arrested under a single,
catch-all section of the law. Current law does not
distinguish between individuals arrested for being
under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination
of both.
This process of arresting individuals for DUI leaves
state and local entities with little information to
study and understand trends on the different types of
substances involved in DUI incidents.
(More)
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageG
AB 2552 will break up the code section of the law used
by law enforcement to charge individuals for DUI into
three sections. These new sections will allow state
and local entities to collect arrest data that is more
precise and that can reflect the actual numbers of
alcohol, drug or a combination of alcohol or drugs.
This type of data is critical for health and safety
agencies to make better informed decisions regarding
funding for officer training, equipment, and/or drug
and alcohol programs.
This new way of arresting people is a top priority for
law enforcement and for state officials because it will
help them determine the prevalence of alcohol or other
drugs in DUI arrests and find better ways to control
it.
2. Reorganizing DUI Section
This bill would reorganize the DUI sections to separate driving
under the influence of alcohol, from driving under the influence
of drugs, and from driving under the influence of alcohol and
drugs. While the "the number of alcohol-and drug-involved crash
fatalities has decreased for the past 5 years," including a
reduction in the number of drugs only convictions, and "the
greatest proportion of crash fatalities remains alcohol-related"
the separation between drug and alcohol in this bill would allow
clearer delineation as to which DUI cases were alcohol involved
and which were drug involved.<1>
3. Support
In support, the California State Sheriffs' state:
Under current law, all individuals arrested for driving
-----------------------
<1> California DMV, 2012 Annual Report of the California DUI
Management Information System; Annual report to the Legislature
of the State of California, January 2012, pp. 63 and 64
http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-2
36.pdf
AB 2552 (Torres)
PageH
under the influence are arrested under a single,
catch-all section of the law. Current law does not
distinguish between individuals arrested for being
under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination
of both. This process leaves state and local entities
with little information to study and understand trends
on the different types of substances involved in DUI
incidents.
AB 2552 will break up the code section of the law used
by law enforcement to charge individuals for DUI into
three sections. These new sections will allow state
and local entities to collect arrest data that is more
precise and that can reflect the actual numbers of
alcohol, drug or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
This type of data is critical for health and safety
agencies to make better informed decisions regarding
funding for officer training, equipment, and/or drug
and alcohol programs.
***************