BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 1203
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: calderon
VERSION: 4/18/12
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Rewards for reporting driving under the influence (DUI) offenses
DESCRIPTION:
This bill entitles a person who reports a DUI offense for which
the offender is later convicted to a $100 reward.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person who is under the
influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or both, to drive a
vehicle. In addition, existing law makes it unlawful for any
person, while having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol
in his or her blood, to drive a vehicle. These offenses are
referred to as DUI offenses.
This bill entitles a person who reports a DUI offense for which
the offender is later convicted to a $100 reward. The bill
requires a court, when convicting an offender for a DUI offense
for which a reward will be paid, to order the offender to pay
the reward in addition to any other penalty. The bill further
prohibits the disclosure of the caller's name unless a court
determines that the disclosure is constitutionally required,
except that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) or other law
enforcement agency must provide identifying information for the
caller to the state or local agency responsible for disbursing
the award.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . Alcohol-impaired driving remains a
serious problem that tragically affects many victims annually,
including 791 fatalities in California during 2010. According
to the author, each and every single injury and death caused
by drunk driving is absolutely preventable. Statewide
campaigns, such as the Department of Transportation's "Report
SB 1203 (CALDERON) Page 2
Drunk Drivers Call 911" campaign, recognize the importance of
citizen involvement in alerting law enforcement to dangerous
drivers. This bill enhances these efforts to identify and
prosecute drunk drivers by rewarding persons who make the
effort to call law enforcement when they witness a driver who
is possibly under the influence.
2.Program on the books . The CHP Manual currently mentions a DUI
Reporter's Reward Program in which local law enforcement
agencies issue $100 cash rewards as an incentive to report
suspected DUI drivers. The law enforcement agencies accept
in-coming calls, issue each caller an anonymous identification
number, and notify the administering financial institution
when a caller is eligible for the reward. The administering
financial institution then issues a check to the caller. A
local non-profit organization is responsible for establishing,
funding, and monitoring the program in each community.
Unfortunately, it appears that no local community has in fact
established such a program, presumably due to a lack of
funding to administer the program and issue the awards.
This bill solves most of the funding problem by requiring
courts to add the reward amount to a violator's penalty but
starts from scratch in terms of establishing an implementation
mechanism. Instead of trying to build on the work that has
already been done to allow for local programs, the bill seeks
to implement an as-yet unformed statewide program. The
committee may wish to consider whether this bill should
establish a statewide program or facilitate the establishment
of optional local programs.
Under the local approach, the bill could require the court in
each county, when notified by a city or county participating
in a local DUI reporter reward program, to collect an
additional $100 from each convicted DUI offender and
distribute the funds to the non-profit administering the local
reward program. By resolving the funding issue, this
alternative would encourage local jurisdictions to establish
their own programs under the existing guidelines.
3.Unresolved issues . While the bill directs the court to order
the offender to pay for the reward and requires law
enforcement to provide identifying information on the caller
to an unnamed disbursement entity, it is silent on a number of
logistical issues:
SB 1203 (CALDERON) Page 3
How will a court know which offenders are required to
pay the additional penalty amount to cover the reward? It
may be easier to impose an additional penalty amount of on
all DUI violators to cover the reward payments and the
administrative costs of the program. Under this approach,
the amount per violator would likely be significantly less
than $100 as only a portion of violators are apprehended as
a result of a citizen call.
Some offenders are unable or unwilling to pay some or
all of the existing fine amounts. Likewise, it is probable
that not all offenders will pay the reward charge required
by this bill. If violators are only charged for the cost
of the reward for their individual case, there will be
insufficient funds to cover rewards in the cases of
non-paying violators.
While the courts can easily collect the additional funds
from offenders, it is the author's intent that the courts
not be responsible for sending out checks to rewardees.
The bill, however, does not identify which entity will
administer the program and issue the checks. The author
has contacted the Controller's office about being the
administrative entity for the program, and those
discussions continue.
The author indicates that this bill is a work in progress and
that he intends to flesh these details out in more details at
a later date. The committee may wish to resolve the first and
second points by imposing a fine of $50 on all DUI violators
to fund the program and the third issue by naming an entity to
administer the program.
1.Arguments in opposition . The California District Attorneys
Association believes that this bill suffers from a number of
logistical problems and could ultimately end up jeopardizing
convictions for DUI offenses. Requiring a dispatcher to take
down the caller's information could impede the rapid dispatch
of law enforcement to the scene of the report. Not making the
name of the caller available to the defendant could put cases
at risk. In addition, the promise of a reward will
undoubtedly be used by the defense to raise questions about
the motive behind the witness's testimony, potentially
jeopardizing an otherwise righteous prosecution.
2.Technical amendments :
SB 1203 (CALDERON) Page 4
Clarify that this program will fall at the end of the
priority list for distribution of collected penalties.
In subdivision (c), strike "drunk" and replace
"dispersing" with "disbursing".
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 18,
2012)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: California District Attorneys Association