Existing law prohibits a person who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle. Existing law also prohibits a person while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle and concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, when the act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. A violation of either of these prohibitions is a crime. Existing law authorizes a court, in addition to imposing penalties and sanctions for those violations, to require the person to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a driving-under-the-influence program, which may include, among other things, education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend a persons privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a specified period of time if the person has driven a motor vehicle when the person had a certain blood-alcohol concentration. Existing law also requires the department to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of a person who refuses an officers request or fails to complete a chemical test or tests, as specified. Existing law authorizes certain individuals whose privilege is suspended or revoked pursuant to that provision to receive a restricted drivers license if specified requirements are met, including the completion of specified periods of license suspension or revocation and, in some instances, the installation of an ignition interlock device on the persons vehicle.

This bill would would, until January 1, 2022, authorize the court to order a person convicted of a crime described above to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified 24/7 Sobriety program, as defined, as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit, probation, if the program is available and deemed appropriate, and the person committed the crime within 10 years of one or more separate crimes described above that resulted in a conviction. The bill also would authorize a court to order participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program as a condition of pretrial release on bond for a person who has been charged with a crime described above, as specified. The bill would define a 24/7 Sobriety program, in part, as requiring a person in the program to abstain from alcohol and unauthorized controlled substances and be subject to frequent testing for alcohol and controlled substances, as specified. The bill would authorize use of participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program in conjunction with participation in an ignition interlock device program. The bill would require a person participating in the program to pay the program costs, commensurate with the persons ability to pay, as specified.

Existing law prohibits a person who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle. Existing law also prohibits a person while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle and concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, when the act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. A violation of either of these prohibitions is a crime. Existing law authorizes a court, in addition to imposing penalties and sanctions for those violations, to require the person to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a driving-under-the-influence program, which may include, among other things, education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend a persons privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a specified period of time if the person has driven a motor vehicle when the person had a certain blood-alcohol concentration. Existing law also requires the department to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of a person who refuses an officers request or fails to complete a chemical test or tests, as specified. Existing law authorizes certain individuals whose privilege is suspended or revoked pursuant to that provision to receive a restricted drivers license if specified requirements are met, including the completion of specified periods of license suspension or revocation and, in some instances, the installation of an ignition interlock device on the persons vehicle.

This bill would authorize the court to order a person convicted of a crime described above to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified 24/7 Sobriety program, as defined, as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit, if the program is available and deemed appropriate, and the person committed the crime within 10 years of one or more separate crimes described above that resulted in a conviction. The bill also would authorize a court to order participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program as a condition of pretrial release on bond for a person who has been charged with a crime described above, as specified. The bill would permit a person whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked for certain violations, and who subsequently applies to the department for a restricted driving privilege, to be permitted to participate in a 24/7 Sobriety program for a minimum of one year as a condition of obtaining the restricted driving privilege as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, participation in an ignition interlock device program. The bill would define a 24/7 Sobriety program, in part, as requiring a person in the program to abstain from alcohol and unauthorized controlled substances and be subject to frequent testing for alcohol and controlled substances, as specified. The bill would authorize use of participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program in conjunction with participation in an ignition interlock device program. The bill would require a person participating in the program to pay the program costs, commensurate with the persons ability to pay, as specified.

Existing law establishes the state transportation improvement program process, pursuant to which the California Transportation Commission programs, on a biennial basis, available state and federal funds for transportation capital improvement projects, other than state highway rehabilitation and repair projects, for the 5-year period of the state transportation improvement program, based on the interregional transportation improvement program prepared by the Department of Transportation and the regional transportation improvement programs prepared by regional transportation planning agencies. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to submit to the California Transportation Commission an estimate of state and federal funds reasonably expected to be available for future programming over the 5-year period in each state transportation improvement program, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt a fund estimate in that regard.

This bill would require the fund estimates prepared by the department and the commission to identify and include federal funds derived from apportionments made to the state under the Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015.

Existing law prohibits a person who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle. Existing law also prohibits a person while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood from driving a vehicle and concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, when the act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. A violation of either of these prohibitions is a crime. Existing law authorizes a court, in addition to imposing penalties and sanctions for those violations, to require the person to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a driving-under-the-influence program, which may include, among other things, education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend a persons privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a specified period of time if the person has driven a motor vehicle when the person had a certain blood-alcohol concentration. Existing law also requires the department to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of a person who refuses an officers request or fails to complete a chemical test or tests, as specified. Existing law authorizes certain individuals whose privilege is suspended or revoked pursuant to that provision to receive a restricted drivers license if specified requirements are met, including the completion of specified periods of license suspension or revocation and, in some instances, the installation of an ignition interlock device on the persons vehicle.

This bill would authorize the court to order a person convicted of a crime described above to enroll and participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified 24/7 Sobriety program, as defined, as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit, if the program is available and deemed appropriate, and the person committed the crime within 10 years of one or more separate crimes described above that resulted in a conviction. The bill also would authorize a court to order participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program as a condition of pretrial release on bond for a person who has been charged with a crime described above, as specified. The bill would permit a person whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked for certain violations, and who subsequently applies to the department for a restricted driving privilege, to be permitted to participate in a 24/7 Sobriety program for a minimum of one year as a condition of obtaining the restricted driving privilege as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, participation in an ignition interlock device program. The bill would define a 24/7 Sobriety program, in part, as requiring a person in the program to abstain from alcohol and unauthorized controlled substances and be subject to frequent testing for alcohol and controlled substances, as specified. The bill would require a person participating in the program to pay the program costs, commensurate with the persons ability to pay, as specified.

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Sandra Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 330

Author:(Cooley) – As Amended Ver:

SUMMARY:

Authorizes the court to order a person convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and sentenced to probation to participate in a “24/7 Sobriety program.” Specifically, this bill:

1. Contains legislative findings and declarations about repeat alcohol consumption and DUI’s, repeat DUI offenders, and a sobriety pilot program in South Dakota.
   
2. Allows the court to order a person convicted of a violation of DUI or DUI with injury to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified “24/7 Sobriety” program as a condition of probation, if the program is available and deemed appropriate, and if the person has one or more prior convictions for a violation of DUI or DUI with injury within a 10 year period.
   
3. States that a “24/7 Sobriety program” requires a person in the program to abstain from alcohol or controlled substances for a designated period of time, and requires the person to be subject to frequent testing by specified methods.
4. Requires a “24/7 Sobriety program” to be evidence-based, which means that the program must satisfy at least two of the following requirements:
   
   1. Evaluation research shows that the program produces the expected positive results;
      
   2. The results can be attributed to the program itself, rather than to other extraneous factors or events;
      
   3. The evaluation is peer reviewed by experts in the field; and,
      
   4. The program is endorsed by a federal agency or respected research organization and included in its list of effective programs.
      
5. States that persons ordered into a “24/7 Sobriety program” may also be required to participate in other DUI programs, including participation in an ignition interlock device (IID) program.
   
6. Provides that each defendant shall pay the program costs commensurate with his or her ability to pay.
   
7. Limits length of participation in the program to no more than 180 days, unless the defendant tests positive for alcohol or an unauthorized controlled substance, or fails to appear for a test.
   
8. Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2022.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a).)
2. Prohibits a person who has 0.08 % or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).)
   
3. Prohibits any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, and consequently proximately causing bodily injury to any person other than the driver. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).)
   
4. Prohibits any person, while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, and consequently proximately causing bodily injury to any person other than the driver. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).)
   
5. Prohibits any person on probation for a DUI offense, while having 0.01% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 23154, subd. (a).)
   
6. Subjects a person convicted of a first DUI without injury to the following penalties:
   
   1. If the sentence does not include probation: incarceration for 96 hours to six months in jail; a fine ranging from $390 up to $1,000; and suspension or revocation of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23536.)
      
   2. If the sentence includes probation: 48 hours to six months in jail; a fine ranging from $390 up to $1,000; suspension or revocation of driving privileges, as specified, and completion of a DUI treatment program, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23538.)
      
7. Subjects a person who is convicted of a second DUI without injury, within 10 years of a prior DUI offense to the following penalties:
   
   1. If the sentence does not include probation: incarceration for at least 90 days and up to one year in jail; a fine ranging between $390 to $1,000; and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23540.)
      
   2. If the sentence includes probation: incarceration of at least 10 days and up to one year in jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; completion of a DUI program; and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23542.)
      
8. Subjects a person who is convicted of a third DUI without injury within 10 years of a prior specified offense of the following penalties:
   
   1. If the sentence does not include probation: incarceration for at least 120 days and up to one year in jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified. The person shall also be designated a habitual traffic offender; or (Veh. Code, § 23546.)
      
   2. If the sentence includes probation: incarceration for at least 120 days and up to one year in jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; completion of a DUI program, as specified, and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23548.)
      
9. Subjects a person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent DUI without injury within 10 years of a prior specified offense of the following penalties: imprisonment in county jail pursuant to realignment, or for 180 days to 1 year in jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000 fine; suspension of driving privileges; and, designation as a habitual traffic offender. (Veh. Code, 23550.)
   
10. Subjects a person who is convicted of a first DUI with injury to the following penalties:
    
    1. If the sentence does not include probation: 16 months, two or three years in state prison or 90 days to or year in county jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified; or (Veh. Code, § 23554.)
       
    2. If the sentence includes probation: incarceration of between five days to one year in jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; completion of a DUI program, as specified, and suspension of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23556.)
       
11. Subjects a person who is convicted of a DUI with injury within 10 years of a prior DUI conviction to the following penalties:
    
    1. If the sentence does not include probation: 16 months, two or three years in state prison, or 120 days to one year in county jail; a fine ranging from $390 to $5,000; and, suspension of driving privileges, as specified; or (Veh. Code, § 23560.)
       
    2. If the sentence includes probation:
       
       1. Confinement in the county jail for at least 120 days; payment of a fine ranging from $390 to $5,000; and suspension of driving privileges, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23562, subd. (a)); or,
          
       2. Confinement in the county jail for at least 30 days but not more than one year; payment of a fine ranging from $390 to $1,000; suspension of driving privileges, as specified; and completion of a DUI program, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23562, subd. (b).)
          
12. Subjects a person who is convicted of a DUI with injury within 10 years of two or more DUI convictions to the following penalties:
    
    1. If the sentence does not include probation: two, three, or four years in state prison; payment of a fine ranging from $1,015 to $5,000; and suspension of driving privileges, as specified; or (Veh. Code, § 23566.)
       
    2. If the sentence includes probation: confinement in the county jail for at least one year; payment of a fine ranging from $390 to $5,000; suspension of driving privileges, as specified; and, completion of a DUI program, as specified. (Veh. Code, § 23568.)
       
13. Allows a person convicted of a DUI to obtain a restricted license upon proof of enrollment or completion of a program, proof of financial responsibility, and payment of fees; however, the court may disallow the restricted license. (Veh. Code, § 13352.)
    
14. Requires a person convicted of DUI, as specified, to install an IID on his or her vehicles for a specified time period in order to receive a restricted driver's license or to reinstate his or her driving privileges. (Veh. Code, § 23573.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “In California, forty percent of all traffic-related fatalities involve alcohol - this is higher than the rate nationwide. Critically, nearly one-third of those convicted for driving under the influence (DUI) re-offend.
   
   “In an effort to add to the toolkit of options available to judges, AB 330 authorizes a court to order a person convicted of multiple DUIs to successfully complete a qualified ‘24/7 Sobriety’ monitoring program.
   
   “24/7 Sobriety programs require individuals to abstain from alcohol for normally 90-180 days and are subject to frequent testing. If they test positive for alcohol use, there are swift, certain and modest sanctions-typically a day or two in jail.
   
   “24/7 Sobriety began as a pilot program in South Dakota in 2005 and required those convicted of alcohol-related offenses to take twice-a-day breathalyzer tests or wear a continuous alcohol monitoring bracelet. After a five-county pilot project, the program grew to include more jurisdictions and offenses. By the end of 2013, studies found that the total number of repeat driving under the influence arrests in counties operating the program fell by twelve percent, and the total number of arrests for domestic violence dropped by nine percent. Subsequently, 24/7 sobriety programs have been implemented in several additional states. In addition, in 2016 Congress approved federal grant money for startup and administrative costs of a 24/7 program.”
   
2. Court’s Authority to Impose Probation Conditions: When granting probation, the trial court has broad discretion to impose conditions which will promote rehabilitation and protect the public. (People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579.) The court "may impose and require … other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, … and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer …." (Pen. Code, § 1203.1.)
   
   A condition of probation is not invalid unless it: "(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality …." (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486.) A provision which "forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality." (Ibid.)

Whether an alcohol-use condition of probation is an abuse of the trial court's discretion is determined by the particular facts of each case. (People v. Patillo, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 1582.)

In DUI cases, an alcohol-abstention condition of probation is reasonably related to the crime for the defendant is convicted. Therefore, a “24/7 Sobriety Program” for a DUI offender would not be an abuse of discretion.

1. Other DUI Conditions: Last year the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SB 1046 (Hill), Chapter 783, requiring DUI offenders to install an IID for a specified period of time in order to have their license reinstated. IID’s are a technique used to deter future driving under the influence. An IID is “a device which prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking. The device works like a breathalyzer, measuring the alcohol in a person’s system. If the amount of alcohol on the driver’s breath exceeds a pre-programmed level, then the interlock temporarily locks the vehicle’s ignition.” (https://www.lifesafer.com/devices/what-is-an-interlock/)
   
   This bill addresses the same problem, deterring driving under the influence, from a different approach, namely complete alcohol abstention via a “24/7 Sobriety Program.” Additionally, this bill provides that the court may require a defendant to participate in other DUI programs, including participation in the IID program.
   
   Do the cumulative conditions imposed on repeat drunk-driving offenders offer added benefits? In light of the fact that repeat DUI offenders are now required to install IID devices on their vehicles in order to have their driving privileges reinstated, is this bill necessary?
   
2. Argument in Support: According to Alcohol Monitoring Systems, a co-sponsor of this bill, “These programs have proven to be a successful strategy in addressing alcohol-related criminal behavior. Other states who have utilized the 24/7 Sobriety strategy have reported reductions in both DUI and domestic violence offenses. For example, a peer-reviewed RAND study, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health, reported a 12% reduction of repeat DUI offenses in South Dakota as a result of its 24/7 Sobriety Program.
   
   “We are particularly pleased that Assembly Bill 330 leaves discretion to the court in determining which type of 24/7 modality is best suited for each individual defendant who is before them. This assures that the 24/7 strategy will be the best possible in each individual case.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, “This measure impose[s] expensive, job-killing restrictions on people of DUI with one prior conviction. For example, the cost of breath-testing alone can run $2 each. Continuous alcohol monitors can run $50 to $100 for set-up, plus $10-$12 per day. (See https://www.scramsystems .com/images/uploads/general/media-pdf/media-kits/scram-mediakit-camFAQ.pdf.)
   

“Despite having no way to determine whether it is even minimally effective at reducing recidivism for alcohol-related crimes, it will definitely cause substantial harm. South Dakota passed similar legislation and statistics do not directly translate to a state like California because of the statistics of small numbers. (See http://suryaofvulcan.livejournal.com/100196.html.) The entire population of South Dakota is about two-thirds of the population of Fresno County, so you can imagine how much smaller the number of people convicted of DUI, and how much smaller still the number of people using South Dakota’s 24/7 program is. It would not take many individuals to make a large statistical change.

“Under current law, DUI offenders, especially repeat offenders, must successfully complete comprehensive alcohol-dependence rehabilitation programs before they can regain their driver licenses. Failure to attend and complete these programs is a violation of probation, which can lead to re-incarceration.

“However, current law recognizes the value to the community, as well as probationers, of maintaining or obtaining employment. It is beyond controversy that steady work is a major component of successful rehabilitation from chemical dependence, including alcohol dependence. None of the restrictions currently employed act to prevent someone from working. AB 330 would.

“Thus, AB 330 ignores and undermines this principle. Working people would be forced to travel, twice each day, to a designated testing facility. South Dakota’s experiment with this program has made it impossible for people working in nontraditional jobs to stay employed. It is particularly hard on agricultural workers, who must travel away from population centers during the day to work. In California, this hurts not just workers, but the farmers who depend on them to harvest crops.

“Moreover, AB 330 would permit—and in South Dakota’s experience, the program encourages—blanket imposition of these restrictions without regard to their necessity or efficacy. It would allow a judge to impose them, not just on someone with three prior convictions and an obvious alcohol problem, but on someone with one conviction nine years ago, a clean record otherwise, a good job, and dependents. California has recently recognized that such blanket restrictions are unnecessary, counterproductive, and expensive.

“AB 330 fails to provide any certification process to insure that program providers are ethical, or that the program produces any positive results. It would allow a ‘respected research organization,’ not further defined, to ‘endorse’ a program and then operate it. Such self-dealing, combined with lax oversight, risks fraud and abuse.…

“AB 330 makes no provision for any meaningful evaluation of whether 24/7 Sobriety actually works in California. Such an evaluation would be difficult if not impossible to make. If it were to be undertaken, it would need to compare 24/7 Sobriety’s dubious benefits and substantial costs to those of existing programs which actually treat the underlying causes of alcoholism. CACJ is firmly convinced that the existing programs serve California far better than 24/7 Sobriety would.”

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 6 (Lackey) requires, to the extent funding is provided, the California Highway Patrol Commissioner to appoint a drugged driving task force to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies to address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs. AB 6 is pending a vote on the Assembly Floor.
      
   2. AB 702 (Lackey) modifies California law as it relates to refusal to submit to a chemical test due to suspicion of DUI to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 136 S.Ct. 2160. AB 702 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 67 (Bates) provides that a felony DUI remains a felony for the purpose of a prior conviction even if the court subsequently reduces the felony to a misdemeanor for other purposes. SB 67 is pending hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   4. SB 611 (Hill) contains technical corrections to properly implement California’s statewide DUI ignition interlock pilot program. SB 611 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2367 (Cooley), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 2367 was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file.
      
   2. SB 1046 (Hill), Chapter 783, of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, requires, under a pilot program, DUI offenders to install an IID for a specified period of time in order to have their license reinstated.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alcohol Justice (Co-Sponsor)
Alcohol Monitoring Systems (Co-Sponsor)
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Narcotic Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Opposition

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. /

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 330 (

Author:Cooley) – As Amended Ver:March 20, 2017

SUBJECT: Highway safety

SUMMARY: Authorizes the court to order a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) with one or more DUI priors within 10 years, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified 24/7 Sobriety program, as defined, as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, work permit, or as a condition of pretrial release on bond. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that the court may order a person convicted of a DUI, or DUI with injury, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a qualified 24/7 Sobriety monitoring program as a condition of probation, or as a condition of pretrial release on bond, if the program is available and deemed appropriate, and the person has one or more prior convictions for a DUI or DUI with injury within a 10-year period.
2. Provides that a 24/7 Sobriety program requires a participant in the program to abstain from alcohol and unauthorized controlled substances for a designated period of time and requires the program to be evidence-based, as specified.
3. Specifies that the program may monitor alcohol or controlled substances through twice-per-day testing at a testing location, continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic monitoring device, or by an alternative method approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or the U.S. Department of Transportation.
4. Specifies that “evidence-based” means the program methodology satisfies the requirements of at least two of the following:
5. Evaluation research shows that the program produces the expected positive results;
   
6. The results can be attributed to the program itself, rather than to other extraneous factors or events;
   
7. The program has been documented as effective by informed experts and other sources; or,
8. The program is endorsed by a federal agency or respected research organization and included in its list of effective programs.
9. Provides that a persons ordered into a program may also be required to participate in other driving-under-the-influence programs, or in an ignition interlock device (IID) program, as specified.
10. Requires each person to pay program costs commensurate with the person’s ability to pay, as specified.
11. Prohibits the court from imposing a program of more than 180 days in length unless the defendant tests positive for alcohol or an unauthorized controlled substance or fails to appear for a test.
12. Requires the Office of Traffic Safety to include a description of the provisions authorizing the 24/7 Sobriety program in its highway safety plan required to be submitted to NHTSA by federal law, including and application requirements necessary to qualify for federal grants.
13. Requires DMV to establish statewide uniform collection and reporting of data including participant demographic information, participant case history information, testing information, and fees, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug or combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, or who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood, from driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or from driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and causing a person other than the driver bodily injury.
2. Authorizes the court to grant probation to a person who commits the above offense within 10 years of a separate DUI violation under specific conditions, including a fine, imprisonment in jail, suspension of the person’s driving privilege, and enrollment and participation in a specified licensed DUI program.
3. Requires, beginning January 1, 2019, every DUI or alcohol-related reckless driving offender to install an IID for a specified period of time, depending on the nature of a violation, in every motor vehicle they own or operate as a condition of having his or her driver’s license reinstated or receiving a restricted license.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Under existing law, a person who is convicted of DUI or DUI with injury within 10 years of a prior DUI offense can be granted probation after fulfilling certain conditions, including paying a fine, serving a jail sentence, enrollment in a DUI program licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and suspension of the person’s driving privilege.

This bill would add an additional pre- and post-trial option to the punishment of a DUI offender who reoffends within 10 years of a prior DUI offense: a 24/7 Sobriety program. In December of 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), a comprehensive highway funding bill. Part of the FAST Act provided incentive grants for states to use 24/7 Sobriety programs and laid out the federal criteria for 24/7 Sobriety programs.

In such a program, as established by this bill, the participant must abstain from alcohol and controlled substances and submit to either twice daily alcohol or drug testing, continuous alcohol testing (through a transdermal bracelet), or other means of drug and alcohol testing as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, work permit, or bond. In similar programs established in other states, if a participant fails a test, they are subject to “certain but modest punishment.” Typically, these punishments are a day or two in jail.

24/7 Sobriety began as a pilot program in South Dakota in 2005 and required those convicted of alcohol-related offenses to take twice-a-day breathalyzer tests or wear a continuous alcohol monitoring bracelet. After a five-county pilot project, the program grew to include more jurisdictions and offenses. By the end of 2013, studies found that the total number of repeat driving under the influence arrests in counties operating the program fell by 12%, and the total number of arrests for domestic violence dropped by 9%. Subsequently, 24/7 Sobriety programs have been implemented in several additional states.

The author intends to add to the toolkit of options available to judges in California through the use of 24/7 Sobriety programs. As the author notes, 40% of all traffic-related fatalities in California involve alcohol, and critically, nearly one-third of those convicted for DUI re-offend. By establishing 24/7 Sobriety as an additional option for the courts, the author intends to target those offenders with an underlying alcohol problem that makes them more likely to consistently drive while impaired.

This bill provides that an offender can still be required by the court to participate in any other DHCS-licensed DUI program as he or she would under existing law, and also provides that a participation in a 24/7 Sobriety program may be used in conjunction with participation in an IID program, as required for all DUI offenders.

Double referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee should it pass out of this committee.

Related legislation: SB 545 (Beall) would authorize the court to order a repeat DUI offender, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a 24/7 Sobriety monitoring program as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit. SB 545 is pending in the Senate Rules Committee.

Previous legislation: AB 933 (Frazier), of 2016 would have authorized the court to order a repeat DUI offender, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a 24/7 Sobriety monitoring program as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit. AB 933 was held in the Senate Rules Committee.

AB 2367 (Cooley) of 2016 would have authorized the court to order a repeat DUI offender, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a 24/7 Sobriety monitoring program as a condition of probation. AB 2367 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

SB 1046 (Hill), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2016, requires the installation of an IID for a specified period of time as a mandatory condition of receiving a restricted or reinstated driver’s license for all DUI offenders statewide.

SB 1066 (Beall, 2016) would have authorized the court to order a repeat DUI offender, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete, a 24/7 Sobriety monitoring program as a condition of probation, parole, sentence, or work permit. SB 1066 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alcohol Justice

Alcohol Monitoring Systems

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Narcotic Officers Association

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Riverside Sheriffs Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Justin Behrens / TRANS. /