BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1046
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Rudy Salas, Chair
SB 1046(Hill) - As Amended June 8, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
NOTE: This bill is double-referred and is scheduled to be heard
in the Assembly Committee on Transportation on Monday, June 27,
2016.
SUBJECT: Driving under the influence: ignition interlock
device
SUMMARY: This bill requires a driving under the influence (DUI)
offender to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on his or
her vehicle for a specified period of time in order to get a
restricted license or to reinstate his or her license and to
remove the required suspension time before a person can get a
restricted license.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Makes it 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. (Vehicle Code (VEH) § 23152(a))
SB 1046
Page 2
2)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. (VEH § 23152(b))
3)Establishes the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV's)
administrative penalties and sanctions for a person convicted
of a DUI. (VEH §§ 13350-13392)
4)Provides that a person convicted of a first-time DUI may apply
for a restricted license for driving to and from work and to
and from a driver-under-influence program if specified
requirements are met, paying all applicable fees, submitting
proof of insurance and proof of participation in a program.
(Vehicle Code § 13352.4)
5)Authorizes the DMV to reinstate the license of a second or
subsequent DUI offender earlier if the offender agrees to
install an IID along with the offender's enrollment in the
required program, proof of insurance, and payment of specified
fees. (Vehicle Code § 13352)
6)Creates an IID pilot project in Alameda, Los Angeles,
Sacramento and Tulare Counties requiring a person convicted of
a DUI to install an IID for five months upon a first offense,
12 months for a second offense, 24 months for a third offense
and for 36 months for a fourth or subsequent offense.
(Vehicle Code § 23700)
7)Establishes the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair,
Home Furnishings, and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI) under the
supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs
and requires the director to administer and enforce the
Electronic the Appliance Repair Dealer Registration Law.
(Business & Professions Code (BPC) §§ 9800 - 9874)
SB 1046
Page 3
8)Authorizes a registered service dealer to install, calibrate,
service, maintain, and monitor IIDs. (BPC § 9807)
9)Authorizes the director to deny, suspend, revoke, or place on
probation the registration of an electronic and appliance
repair service dealer for violations of the Appliance Repair
Dealer Registration Law, including fraud, dishonest dealing,
and untrue or misleading statements. (BPC §§ 9830 - 9833)
10)Establishes the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) under the
supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs
and requires the director to administer and enforce the
Automotive Repair Act, which provides for the registration and
regulation of automotive repair dealers (ARDs). (BPC §§ 9880
- 9889.68)
11)Requires the BAR to cooperate with the Office of Traffic
Safety to adopt standards for installation, maintenance, and
servicing of IIDs by ARDs. (BPC § 9882.14)
12)Authorizes ARDs to install, maintain, and service an IID.
(Title 16 California Code of Regulations §§ 3363.1 - 3363.4)
13)Authorizes the director to deny, suspend, revoke, or place on
probation the registration of an ARD for violations of the
Automotive Repair Act, including dishonesty, fraud, or deceit.
(BPC §§ 9889.1 - 9889.10)
THIS BILL:
SB 1046
Page 4
14)Extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2017.
15)Provides that beginning July 1, 2017 all DUI offenders will
be required to install an IID for a specified period of time
in order to have their license reinstated, as specified.
16)Removes the time a person must have a suspended license
before he or she is able to apply for a restricted license if
he or she installs an IID.
17)Allows a court to order a person convicted of a "wet
reckless" to install an IID on his or her car.
18)Requires the DMV to issue a report to the Legislature by June
1, 2021, regarding the implementation and efficacy of the
requirements under this bill.
19)Requires IID manufacturers to adopt a fee schedule under
which the manufacturer will absorb a varying amount of an
offender's cost for the IID based on the offender's income
relative to the federal poverty level.
20)Clarifies that the BAR and BEARFHTI may bring an
administrative action against an ARD or registered service
dealer for failing to adhere to the fee schedule.
21)Makes other conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriation Committee:
SB 1046
Page 5
1)IID program automation: Significant one-time programming
costs in excess of $500,000 for DMV to update programs. Costs
are estimated to be covered by the authority of the DMV to
charge a fee for administration of the program.
2)DMV field offices: Potential increase in annual costs of
$700,000 to $750,000 for additional transaction time required
in field offices to verify IID installation for applications
for restricted driver licenses. Costs are estimated to be
covered by the authority of the DMV to charge a fee for
administration of the program.
3)DMV headquarters: Ongoing increase in workload costs of
$400,000 to $450,000 resulting from processing proof of IID
installation forms and reinstatements requiring manual review
and processing. One-time costs for the development of
regulations, changes to existing forms, and
preparation/distribution of notifications. Costs are estimated
to be covered by the authority of the DMV to charge a fee for
administration of the program.
4)Legislative report: One-time costs of $500,000 for the DMV
to research, develop, and submit the report on the IID
program.
5)IID vendor oversight: Unknown, but potentially significant
ongoing costs for enforcement to the Bureau of Electronic
Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation of
the Department of Consumer Affairs to the extent a significant
number of violations materialize resulting from substantive
complaints as a result of this bill.
6)DUI violations: Unknown, potential future impact on the
number of DUI arrests and convictions that would result in
related impacts to the costs incurred by the courts, treatment
programs, law enforcement, local jails, and state prisons.
SB 1046
Page 6
COMMENTS:
Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the author and Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD). According to the author, "In
California, each year about 1,000 people die from drunk drivers
and more than 20,000 are injured?. Over the last five years
ignition interlock devices have prevented drinking and driving
over one million times in California. Let me state that again:
California's ignition interlock program for DUI offenders has
prevented someone from drinking and driving over 1 million times
during the last five years. This bill expands the program
statewide so all Californians can benefit from safer roadways."
Background. This bill requires any person convicted of a DUI to
install an IID on all the cars he or she owns for a specified
period of time. As proposed by this bill, a person convicted of
a first offense has a six month suspension and the IID must be
installed for six months. A person with a second offense has a
two-year suspension and the IID must be installed for 12 months.
A person with a third offense has a three year suspension and
the IID must be installed for 24 months. A person with a fourth
or subsequent offense has a four year suspension and the IID
must be installed for 36 months.
Pilot Project. AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009,
created an IID pilot project in four counties which mandates the
use of an IID for all DUI offenders. The rationale for a pilot
project was to see what impact a mandatory IID program has on
recidivism in California.
While the impact of IID has been studied elsewhere, with mixed
results, the comparisons are not perfect because while some of
the other states began mandating IID at the same time they
SB 1046
Page 7
strengthened other sanctions, California has had a complex group
of sanctions including high fines, jail time, licensing
sanctions, mandatory DUI treatment programs and optional IID in
place since the mid-1980's with sanctions being evaluated,
changed and strengthened on an ongoing basis since.
The thought was that with a pilot project, the DMV can evaluate
how best a mandatory IID system should work in California. By
evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory
programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.
Evaluating how the DUI sanctions work is something the DMV
researchers have been doing with great success since 1990. The
DMV's reports have helped inform the Legislature on where
changes needed to be made which may have contributed to reduce
recidivism in California.
DMV Reports on AB 91. So far, the DMV has released two studies
on the efficacy of the county pilot programs. The first report
was published in 2015 and was entitled General Deterrent
Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in
California. In the report, the DMV found that:
The IID pilot program? does not appear to be associated with a
reduction in the number of first-time DUI convictions and
repeat DUI offenses in the pilot counties?. Even though the
IID pilot program was not found to have a general deterrent
effect on the occurrence of DUI convictions in designated
pilot counties, this evaluation does not provide information
about the specific deterrence effect of this pilot program.
To determine if this IID pilot program is associated with
changes in the specific behavior of individual drivers who
were convicted of DUI subsequent to the implementation of the
AB 91 law and thus were subject to the IID pilot program
requirements, a separate, so called, specific deterrence
evaluation needs to be conducted.
SB 1046
Page 8
The second report was the DMV's Specific Deterrent Evaluation of
the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California, published on
June 17, 2016, which found that:
1)Pilot participants had lower DUI recidivism rates than other
DUI offenders, but these lower rates significantly diminished
over time; and,
2)Individuals obtaining an IID-restricted license had a higher
increase in crashes, including fatal/injury crashes, compared
to DUI offenders whose licenses remained suspended or revoked.
In discussing the results, the DMV noted that:
Although the reduction in DUI recidivism provides evidence of
benefits associated with IID restrictions, the increased crash
risks associated with the AB 91 pilot program suggest that
additional investigation and research could be beneficial.
Inclusion of information regarding crash responsibility (i.e.
at-fault/not-at-fault), alcohol involvement, or severity level
(i.e., fatal/injury crashes versus property-damage only
crashes) may provide further insight.
Future discussions regarding IID requirements should consider
the effectiveness of IIDs as a single countermeasure or
whether combining IIDs with driver license revocation or
suspension actions and other countermeasures, could provide a
more effective approach to enhancing traffic safety.
In sum, the DMV found that, while the pilot programs did not
demonstrate a greater general deterrent effect (i.e. preventing
drinking and driving before it happens), it did find that IID
installation is associated with a lower risk of DUI recidivism
SB 1046
Page 9
(i.e. potentially more effective at preventing DUI offenders
from offending again). However, because the DMV contends that
there may be superior combinations of mandatory suspension
periods and IID installations based on offender types, the DMV
does not recommend expanding the pilot program statewide at this
time. Specifically, the DMV recommends:
1)Convene a task force including representatives from the
Legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, and other public
agencies to develop recommendations for strengthening
components of California's comprehensive DUI countermeasure
system.
2)Evaluate the traffic safety benefits of the IID program
implemented under SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of
2009, including the effectiveness of shortening a hard license
suspension or revocation period for those DUI offenders who
choose to obtain an IID-restricted license.
3)Collaborate with representatives from the courts, law
enforcement, and other entities to explore options for using
IIDs as an effective DUI countermeasure, including using IIDs
as an "alcohol-abstinence-compliance" monitoring tool in a
modified version of the traditional DUI court model.
4)Conduct and report to the Legislature an evaluation of prior
studies on the effectiveness of DUI countermeasures in place
in California (including IIDs). This report will offer
recommendations on legislative reforms to both retain and/or
expand effective countermeasures and revise and/or strengthen
less effective countermeasures.
Hard Suspension. Under existing law, a person convicted of a
DUI must wait a period of time before they can apply to the DMV
for a restricted license. Since 2005, all licensing actions
have gone through the DMV not the courts. This bill removes
SB 1046
Page 10
that mandatory suspension and allows a person to immediately get
an IID if he or she installs an IID and meets the other
requirements. It may also allow the installation during any
time of any administrative suspension since it allows the
installation without "any suspension."
According to the latest DMV report on the DUI Management
Information System, DUI arrests in 2011 decreased by 8.0%
following decreases of 6.1% in 2010 and 2.9% in 2009 (California
DMV 2013 Annual Report of the California DUI Management
Information System). The report further indicated that the
one-year recidivism rates for all first DUI offenders decreased
to the lowest level seen in the past 21 years.
The 2013 and prior reports have all indicated a link between the
decline in DUIs and the mandatory suspension of a license
because a significant decline occurred after a mandatory
administrative suspension (APS) was indicated:
The re-offense rates of second offenders remain higher than
those of first offenders across all years Previous DUI -MIS
reports suggested that, while many factors may be associated
with the overall decline in DUI incidents for both first and
second offenders, the reduction may largely be attributed to
the implementation of APS suspensions in 1990. An evaluation
(Rogers, 1997) of the California APS Law documents recidivism
reductions of up to 21.1% for first offenders and 19.5% for
repeat offenders, attributable to the law.
Sliding Scale for IID Costs. The sliding scale language in the
bill describes the provider absorbing portions of "the cost of
the ignition interlock device" for those that meet specified
income limits. It does not specify what is included in the cost
of the IID. The IID is one cost but the monitoring costs are
additional. Further, this bill says that the cost of the IID
SB 1046
Page 11
can only be raised equal to the Consumer Price Index but does
not indicate where that price shall currently start.
Regardless, this bill specifies that the BAR and the BEARHFTI
have the authority to verify whether ARDs and registered service
dealers who install IIDs are following the sliding scale. This
is a clarifying change, as both bureaus have the authority to
require an ARD or registered service dealer to follow the fee
schedule. For instance, both practice acts prohibit
overcharging, an act of dishonesty, and negligence.
Prior Related Legislation. SB 61 (Hill), Chapter 350, Statutes
of 2015, extended the operation of the pilot program until July
1, 2017.
SB 55 (Hill) of 2013, would have established a statutory scheme
under which, as a condition of being issued a restricted
driver's license, being reissued a driver's license, or having
the privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated for a 2nd or
subsequent conviction for a an alcohol-related violation of the
above offenses, a person would be required to install for a
specified period of time an ignition interlock device on all
vehicles he or she owns or operates, except as provided. NOTE:
This bill was held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009, requires the DMV
to advise a person convicted of a second or third offense of DUI
with a BAC of .08% or more that he or she may receive a
restricted license, as specified, if he or she shows
verification of installation of a certified IID and pays a fee
sufficient to include the costs of administration, as specified.
AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, established an IID
pilot project in four counties which mandates the use of an IID
SB 1046
Page 12
for all DUI offenders.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The Advocates for Highway Safety write in support, "Drunk
driving is a deadly and costly threat to California families.
While nationally drunk driving fatalities decreased 2.5 percent
in 2013, California experienced a 6 percent increase from the
previous year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)), and statistics for 2014 alcohol involved crashes show
that fatalities remain high. In 2014, 1,053 people were
needlessly killed in alcohol-related crashes on California's
streets and roads, accounting for over one quarter (29 percent)
of all traffic fatalities. Moreover, drunk driving is costly.
California taxpayers were burdened by $5.4 billion in drunk
driving related costs in 2013 (MADD). Clearly, this is a
serious and expensive problem on California's roads which
requires urgent attention and the effective solution of IIDs.
California's current law allows optional use of IIDs statewide,
but only about 20 percent of convicted drunk drivers who have a
choice of installing an IID or driving on a limited restricted
license opt for IID installation. The state also continues to
maintain a pilot program requiring the use of IIDs for all
offenders in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare
counties. Data from the California Department of Motor Vehicle
(DMV) shows a higher rate of IID use in the pilot program
counties. A recent MADD report on the effectiveness of IIDs in
California noted that since the California pilot program began,
IIDs have 'prevented vehicles from starting over 1 million times
because alcohol was detected on the driver's breath.' According
to the MADD report, IIDs prevent over 1,900 drunk driving
incidents per month in California."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
SB 1046
Page 13
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice write in
opposition, "This bill will eliminate judges' discretion in 54
counties, to require an ignition interlock device (IID) for
first time DUI offenders as part of sentencing and applicable
probation conditions. Currently, four counties are
experimenting with mandatory IID in EVERY case even if a judge
makes an alternative finding.
There are sample studies supporting the effectiveness of IID use
and greater compliance when ordered on a case-by-case basis or
included in a negotiated plea. SB 1046 simply imposes the
4-county experiment statewide. Thus far DMV has not concluded
that such a blanket approach is more effective than current law
in 54 counties. Furthermore, California law incentivizes the
installation of IID's for second time offenders with significant
success. SB 1046 conflicts with this proven approach by
mandating its usage for every first-time offenders.
For years DMV statistics have shown that, under current law and
using best practices, very few drivers reoffend with the first
six months, which is the period covered by [this bill]. As
such, a statewide mandate seems to be inconsistent with
empirical evidence.
A 54-county expansion will result in an exponential increase in
business for IID companies and there has been limited oversight
of these companies, especially those who plan to be rewarded
with significant increase in revenues as a result of [this
bill]. This artificial spike in profits should be contemplated
only after a thorough assessment of the practices of the IID
businesses in California. This is especially critical when DMV
studies do not appear to support such a mandatory approach.
SB 1046
Page 14
Lastly, the four-county experiment of eliminating judicial
discretion has not been fully analyzed to determine whether this
is the most appropriate public policy. We anticipate the DMV
report will address many of these concerns and the Legislature
can explore the department's findings to determine appropriate
next steps. Until then, any action on this issue is premature."
REGISTERED SUPPORT:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (co-sponsor)
AAA Automobile Club of Northern and Southern California
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Alameda District Attorney O'Malley
Alcohol Justice
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Air Shock Trauma Rescue
California Ambulance Association
SB 1046
Page 15
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Medical Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
City of El Cajon
Crime Victims United of California
Emergency Nurses Association
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones
John Muir Health serving Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda and Marin
League of California Cities
SB 1046
Page 16
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
National Transportation Safety Board
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Regional Medical Center of San Jose
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Safety Council
San Diego County
San Francisco Chief of Police Greg Suhr
SB 1046
Page 17
San Marcos Prevention Coalition
Tulare County Supervisor Ennis
REGISTERED OPPOSITION:
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by:Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301