UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 485

Author: Beall (D), et al.

Amended: 9/5/19

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/2/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 5/23/19

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Wilk

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-24, 9/11/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Driving privilege: suspension: offenses involving vehicle use

SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations

DIGEST:

This bill removes driver’s license suspension as a penalty for offenses that are not related to driving.

Assembly Amendments

(1) clarify the ability to suspend a license if ordered by the court, and (2) add double-jointing language to address potential chaptering issues.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a court may suspend for 30 days the driver’s license of a person convicted of solicitation for prostitution that occurs when the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a residence and with a vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 13201.5; Penal Code § 647)
2. Provides that a minor who is convicted of any offense involving a firearm that is capable of being concealed, the court may suspend or delay the minor’s diving privilege for five years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.4)
3. Provides that if a person under 21 years of age is convicted of an alcohol related offense, that person’s driver’s license shall be suspended or delayed for one year. Or, the court may instead restrict the person’s license for up to six months and the restriction may include the requirement that an ignition interlock be installed. (Vehicle Code §§ 13202.5; 13202.8)
4. Provides that every person over the age of 13 who is convicted of vandalism shall have their driver’s license suspended or delayed for two years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.6)
5. Provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall suspend the driver’s license of an individual if that licensee’s name is included on a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000. (Business and Professions Code § 494.5)

This bill:

1. Repeals the license suspensions in the above sections.
2. Provides that notwithstanding any other law, and to the extent permitted by federal law, and to the extent federal funding is not jeopardized, the court and DMV shall not suspend or delay a person’s driving privilege based on that person’s conviction of a criminal offense not involving a violation of this code, unless the offense involved the use, or attempted use, of a vehicle and the suspension and delay is otherwise authorized by law.
3. Provides that it is not intended to affect any order or determination made by the court or the DMV before January 1, 2020, to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of a person.
4. Provides this bill is intended to remove the authority of the court and the DMV to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of the following persons pursuant to this bill:
   1. Persons who are convicted, on or after January 1, 2020, of an offense described in this bill that would have been subject to the suspension, delay or restriction.
   2. Persons who were convicted, before January 1, 2020, of an offense described in this bill that would have been subject to the suspension, delay or restriction, but whose driving privilege had not been suspended, delayed or otherwise restricted before January 1, 2020.

Comments

According to the author:

Suspending an individual’s driver’s license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. This approach does not increase public safety. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color. SB 485 prohibits suspending a driver’s license for non-vehicle related crimes.

A driver’s license is essential for people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not prevent individuals from committing those crimes. Such suspensions deter a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution.

In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people’s livelihoods depend on having a valid driver’s license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license. 1 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

In 2018, Chicago Jobs Council released a report, “Living in Suspension” highlighting the negative impacts of unnecessary driver’s license suspensions on people’s lives in Illinois. Their survey found that 52% of their respondents who had their licenses suspended because of non-driving violations missed an employment opportunity due to the suspension, 72% had to pay more than $500 to re-obtain a valid license and 31% had to may more than $3000 to re-obtain a valid license. 2 In Florida, Senators Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) and Darryl Rousen (D-St. Petersburg) filed Senate Bill 302 (2017) to end the suspension of non-driving related offenses. This was a bipartisan effort to significantly reduce the large number of suspensions each year.

California’s laws suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes are outdated and ineffective. The punitive action of suspending a driver’s license for acts unrelated to driving oversteps the DMV’s authority. At a time when California is dedicated to improving service at the DMV, eliminating workload that does not serve a public purpose is a benefit for DMV workers as well as customers.

SB 485 prohibits suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution.

Over the years, suspension of a driver’s license as a penalty was added to a number of provisions that are unrelated to driving. These include prostitution, vandalism and various alcohol related violations committed by a minor. This bill deletes driver’s license suspension as a penalty from these offenses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor costs to the DMV to make programming changes to prevent automatic reporting of new violations from the court and update and distribute information regarding new rules. Minor cost savings to the DMV in eliminated workload following implementation to reinstate previously suspended licenses based on certain convictions.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/19)

Conference of California Bar Associations (source)

ACLU of California

California Bus Association

California Public Defenders Association

Courage Campaign

Freedom 4 Youth

Initiate Justice

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Youth Justice Coalition

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-24, 9/11/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Irwin, Kiley, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Ramos, Salas, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Quirk-Silva, Rodriguez

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

9/11/19 20:14:32

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 485

Author:(Beall)

As Amended Ver:September 5, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Removes the ability of the court and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to delay, suspend, or revoke a person's driving privilege as a result of a conviction for various offenses.

Major Provisions

1. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of selling, furnishing, giving, or causing to be sold, furnished or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age.
2. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage in any "on-sale" premises.
3. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being an on-sale licensee who knowingly permits a person under 21 years of age to consume any alcoholic beverage in the on-sale premises.
4. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and possessing an alcoholic beverage in a public place.
5. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and in possession of alcohol in a vehicle without a parent, adult relative, or other designated adult.
6. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and presenting or offering a fraudulent identification or one that is not actually his or her own in an attempt to acquire alcohol.
7. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of possessing, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or transferring any document, not amounting to counterfeit, purporting to be a government-issued identification card or driver's license.
8. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend for up to 30 days, or restrict for up to 6 months, the driving privilege of a person convicted of the misdemeanor offense of soliciting or agreeing to engage in a lewd act or an act of prostitution, if that offense involves the use of a vehicle.
9. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend, or order the DMV to revoke, the driving privilege of a person convicted of numerous offenses related to controlled substances if a vehicle was involved in or incidental to the offense, as specified.
10. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a minor convicted of a public offense involving a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
11. Repeals the requirement that the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of an offense of vandalism or defacing a structure with butyric acid.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"Suspending an individual's driver's license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. A driver's license is essential for people's everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not increase public safety. Such suspensions deter a person's ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color.

"In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people's livelihoods depend on having a valid driver's license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver's license.3 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

"SB 485 prohibits suspending driver's licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, "The laws imposing driving restrictions on juveniles for non-driving offenses came about primarily in an era in which it was believed that more punishment would bring about rehabilitation. Since that time, juvenile experts have come to realize that loading youth down with long lists of probation conditions is unlikely to produce success. Best practices in probation now call for the imposition of many fewer conditions of probation, with an emphasis on imposing targeted conditions that will promote healthy development (See, e.g., National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, Resolution Regarding Juvenile Probation and Adolescent Development (2018)). Restrictions on driving privileges for non-driving offenses are not targeted and do not promote healthy development."

Arguments in Opposition:

None

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor costs to the DMV to make programming changes to prevent automatic reporting of new violations from the court and update and distribute information regarding new rules. Minor cost savings to the DMV in eliminated workload following implementation to reinstate previously suspended licenses based on certain convictions.

VOTES:

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener

NO: Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Wilk

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-5-1

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Maienschein

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 5, 2019

CONSULTANT: Matthew Fleming / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001928

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 485

Author:(Beall)

As Amended Ver:June 17, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Removes the ability of the court and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to delay, suspend, or revoke a person's driving privilege as a result of a conviction for various offenses.

Major Provisions

1. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of selling, furnishing, giving, or causing to be sold, furnished or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age.
2. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage in any "on-sale" premises.
3. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being an on-sale licensee who knowingly permits a person under 21 years of age to consume any alcoholic beverage in the on-sale premises.
4. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and possessing an alcoholic beverage in a public place.
5. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and in possession of alcohol in a vehicle without a parent, adult relative, or other designated adult.
6. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and presenting or offering a fraudulent identification or one that is not actually his or her own in an attempt to acquire alcohol.
7. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of possessing, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or transferring any document, not amounting to counterfeit, purporting to be a government-issued identification card or driver's license.
8. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend for up to 30 days, or restrict for up to 6 months, the driving privilege of a person convicted of the misdemeanor offense of soliciting or agreeing to engage in a lewd act or an act of prostitution, if that offense involves the use of a vehicle.
9. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend, or order the DMV to revoke, the driving privilege of a person convicted of numerous offenses related to controlled substances if a vehicle was involved in or incidental to the offense, as specified.
10. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a minor convicted of a public offense involving a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
11. Repeals the requirement that the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of an offense of vandalism or defacing a structure with butyric acid.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"Suspending an individual's driver's license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. A driver's license is essential for people's everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not increase public safety. Such suspensions deter a person's ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color.

"In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people's livelihoods depend on having a valid driver's license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver's license.3 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

"SB 485 prohibits suspending driver's licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, "The laws imposing driving restrictions on juveniles for non-driving offenses came about primarily in an era in which it was believed that more punishment would bring about rehabilitation. Since that time, juvenile experts have come to realize that loading youth down with long lists of probation conditions is unlikely to produce success. Best practices in probation now call for the imposition of many fewer conditions of probation, with an emphasis on imposing targeted conditions that will promote healthy development. (See, e.g., National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, Resolution Regarding Juvenile Probation and Adolescent Development (2018).) Restrictions on driving privileges for non-driving offenses are not targeted and do not promote healthy development."

Arguments in Opposition:

None.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor costs to the DMV to make programming changes to prevent automatic reporting of new violations from the court and update and distribute information regarding new rules. Minor cost savings to the DMV in eliminated workload following implementation to reinstate previously suspended licenses based on certain convictions.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

VOTES:

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener

NO: Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Wilk

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-5-1

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Maienschein

UPDATED:

VERSION: June 17, 2019

CONSULTANT: Matthew Fleming / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001330

Date of Hearing: August 14, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 485

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:June 17, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill repeals the authority of the court and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to delay, suspend or revoke a person’s driving privilege as a result of a conviction for various misdemeanor offenses not related to driving.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor costs to the DMV to make programming changes to prevent automatic reporting of new violations from the court and update and distribute information regarding new rules. Minor cost savings to the DMV in eliminated workload following implementation to reinstate previously suspended licenses based on certain convictions.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Suspending an individual’s driver’s license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. This approach does not increase public safety. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color.

1. Background. This bill generally prohibits the court from suspending a person’s license for misdemeanor conduct. However, some provisions, particularly those pertaining to controlled substances offenses, constitute felony conduct. This bill does not prohibit a court from suspending a person’s license for felony offenses if there is a nexus between the commission of the offense and the vehicle. Existing federal law requires states revoke or suspend a person’s driver’s license if convicted of specified drug crimes or risk losing some amount of the transportation funds to which the state is entitled. However, there is an opt-out clause that allows a state to retain its transportation funds if the governor and the legislature are in opposition to the law requiring driver’s license suspension for drug convictions and they send written certification to the Secretary of Transportation. California is one of many states that have chosen to opt out of the so called “smoke a joint, lose your license” federal legislation. This bill does not impact a defendant’s obligation to pay statutory fines and fees associated with the misdemeanor convictions that may also result in suspension or delay of a person’s driving privileges. Previous amendments also removed language that prohibited courts from imposing license suspension for failure to pay taxes.
2. Related Legislation. AB 1618 (Jones-Sawyer) would remove the ability of the court and the DMV to suspend or delay someone’s driver’s license for a conviction of the crime of vandalism. AB 1618 was amended into an unrelated subject matter and is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
3. Prior Legislation.
   1. AB 2685 (Lackey), Chapter 717, Statutes of 2018, eliminated license suspensions for minors who are found to be habitually truant.
      
   2. AB 534 (Linder), of the 2015–2016 Legislative Session, would have required the court to suspend the driving privilege for six months of any person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to hit and run with property damage if the charge is a substitute or in satisfaction of the charge of hit and run resulting in injury or death. AB 534 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      
   3. AB 2600 (Norby), of the 2011–2012 Legislative Session, would have prohibited a person’s driving privilege from being suspended or revoked for a conviction of simple possession of marijuana. AB 2600 failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 9, 2019

Counsel: Matthew Fleming

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 485

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:June 17, 2019

SUMMARY: Removes the ability of the court and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to delay, suspend, or revoke a person’s driving privilege as a result of a conviction for various misdemeanor offenses. Specifically, this bill:

1. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of selling, furnishing, giving, or causing to be sold, furnished or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age.
   
2. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage in any “on-sale” premises.
   
3. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being an on-sale licensee who knowingly permits a person under 21 years of age to consume any alcoholic beverage in the on-sale premises.
   
4. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and possessing an alcoholic beverage in a public place.
   
5. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and in possession of alcohol in a vehicle without a parent, adult relative, or other designated adult.
   
6. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of being under the age of 21 years and presenting or offering a fraudulent identification or one that is not actually his or her own in an attempt to acquire alcohol.
   
7. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of the misdemeanor offense of possessing, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or transferring any document, not amounting to counterfeit, purporting to be a government-issued identification card or driver’s license.
   
8. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend for up to 30 days, or restrict for up to 6 months, the driving privilege of a person convicted of the misdemeanor offense of soliciting or agreeing to engage in a lewd act or an act of prostitution, if that offense involves the use of a vehicle.
   
9. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend, or order the DMV to revoke, the driving privilege of a person convicted of numerous offenses related to controlled substances if a vehicle was involved in or incidental to the offense, as specified.
   
10. Repeals the authority of the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a minor convicted of a public offense involving a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    
11. Repeals the requirement that the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person who is convicted of an offense of vandalism or defacing a structure with butyric acid.
    
12. Makes findings of legislative intent stating that these provisions are not intended to affect any order or determination made by the court or the DMV before January 1, 2020, to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of a person. Instead, they are only intended to effect people who are convicted of the specified offenses after January 1, 2020, or persons who were convicted prior to January 1, 2020 but whose driving privilege was not suspended, delayed, or otherwise restricted.
    
13. Makes conforming changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Criminalizes various acts pertaining to underage drinking and authorizes the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person convicted of such an offense. (Bus & Prof. §§ 25658, 25658.4, 25658.5, 25661, 25662; Pen. Code § 529.5.)
   
2. Criminalizes the acts of soliciting or agreeing to engage in a lewd act in a public place or an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation and authorizes the court to suspend or restrict the driving privilege of a person convicted of such an offense. (Pen. Code § 647, subds. (a), (b), and (k); Veh. Code § 13201.5.)
   
3. Criminalizes numerous acts pertaining to the use, possession, sales, transportation, etc., of controlled substances and authorizes the court to suspend or order the DMV to revoke the driving privilege of a person convicted of such an offense. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11000 et seq.; Veh. Code § 13202.)
   
4. Criminalizes acts of vandalism and defacing a structure with butyric acid and authorizes the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a person convicted of such an offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 594, 594.3, and 594.4; Veh. Code § 13202.6.)
   
5. Authorizes the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege of a minor who commits a public offense involving a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person for up to five years. (Veh. Code § 13202.4, subd. (a).)
   
6. Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked and the person has knowledge of the suspension. (Veh. Code § 14601.1)
   
7. Provides that the DMV shall immediately revoke a person’s driving privilege upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of specified offenses relating to the use of a motor vehicle. (Veh. Code § 13350, et. seq.)
   

EXISTING FEDERAL LAW

1. States that Secretary of Transportation shall withhold a specified percentage of a state’s transportation funds if it has not enacted and enforced a law that requires at least a six-month suspension or revocation of driving privilege for a person convicted of a violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Acts, or any drug offense. (23 U.S.C. § 159(a)(3)(A).)
   
2. Allows a state to opt out of the above-reference law and receive the full percentage of transportation funds by submitting a written certification to the Secretary of Transportation from the Governor stating that the Governor is opposed to the law and a written certification that the legislature has adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to the law. (23 U.S.C. § 159(a)(3)(B).)
   

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Suspending an individual’s driver’s license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. A driver’s license is essential for people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not increase public safety. Such suspensions deter a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color.
   

“In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people’s livelihoods depend on having a valid driver’s license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license.3 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

“SB 485 prohibits suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution.”

1. AB 1618: AB 1618 (Jones-Sawyer) was introduced this session and was similar to this bill. AB 1618 was eventually amended into an unrelated bill, but, in its prior version it would have eliminated the requirement that the court impose a license suspension or delay for a person convicted of a vandalism offense. According to the Assembly Committee on Transportation’s analysis of that bill:

“Despite decades of legislative efforts of using license suspensions as a deterrent against graffiti, graffiti has persisted. In 2014, the City of Los Angeles spent $7 million cleaning up 32.4 million square feet of graffiti.

“While the suspended licenses appear to have not had an effect on reducing graffiti, they have real world impacts on transportation. Suspending someone’s driver’s license does not stop someone from driving. In fact, there were 115,000 convictions for driving with a suspended license in 2018 (and that number does not include suspensions as a result of reckless driving or driving under the influence.) It does, however, stop someone from having a legal means of getting to work or school if there is no available public transportation.

“Further, suspending licenses also stops those who opt to drive anyway from having vehicle insurance. This could have detrimental effects for anyone involved in vehicle accident with someone driving with a suspended license. According to a 2000 study from AAA entitled Unlicensed to Kill, nearly 1 in 5 traffic fatalities in California are committed by someone with a suspended license, and hit and runs are more likely to occur when someone has a suspended license.

“By delaying a teenager’s ability to get a license until after the age of 18, you are also guaranteeing they will not get a provisional driver’s license, which includes behind the wheel training requirements.

“While the state grants courts the ability to suspend licenses for something completely unrelated to driving, two years ago it removed the authority for courts to suspend driver’s licenses for failing to pay traffic tickets out of recognition of the harm it may cause for low income families.” (Assem. Com. on Transportation, Analysis on Assem. Bill No. 1618 (2019 – 2020 Sess.) as amended April 11, 2019, p. 3.)

1. The Need for this Bill: Although AB 1618 pertained only to vandalism offenses, the analysis by the Assembly Transportation Committee concluded that “[t]he Legislature may want to consider whether it should continue to allow for the suspension of driver’s licenses for issues unrelated to traffic safety.” (Ibid.) This bill would eliminate a number of statutory provisions that either allow or require a court to suspend or delay a person’s driver’s license when they are convicted of offenses that are not directly related to any kind of driving activity. Suspensions and delays for reckless driving, vehicular manslaughter, and fleeing the scene of an accident would be undisturbed by the provisions of this bill, whereas suspensions and delay of driving privileges for offenses related to underage drinking, prostitution, vandalism, and controlled substances (other than driving while intoxicated) would be eliminated.
   
   Most of the offenses contemplated by this bill constitute misdemeanor conduct, however some provisions, particularly those which pertain to controlled substances offenses, would encompass felony conduct. It’s important to note, however, that irrespective of the changes made by this bill, the court would retain its authority to order that a person’s license be suspended or revoked as a result of a conviction for a felony offense, provided that there is a nexus between the commission of the offense and the vehicle. (See In re Gaspar (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 166, 169 (citing People v. Poindexter (1980) 210 Cal. App. 3d 803, 808).) Therefore, if it appears to a court that suspending or delaying the driver’s license could be useful in order to prevent recidivism, it will still be able to do so. Paulsen is illustrative of the court’s authority in this regard. In that case, it was determined to be appropriate for a court to suspend the license of a person who had rented a U-Haul truck for the purposes of transporting stolen equipment that was taken as part of an “elaborate fraud scheme.” (People v. Paulsen (1989) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1420, 1423.) The “strong nexus” between the crime and the vehicle made it appropriate for the court to order the license suspension. This bill would leave the court’s discretionary authority to suspend licenses in felony cases intact, so long as there exists an appropriate nexus between the crime and a vehicle.
   
   Existing federal law appears to require the states to revoke or suspend the driver’s license of any person convicted of a controlled substance offense or risk losing some amount of the transportation funds to which the state is entitled. (23 U.S.C. § 159(a)(3)(A).) However, there is an opt-out clause which allows a state to retain their transportation funds if the Governor and the Legislature are in opposition to the law requiring driver’s license suspension for drug convictions and they send written certification to the Secretary of Transportation. It appears that California is one of the many states that has chosen to opt out of the so called “smoke a joint, lose your licenses” federal legislation. (See Aiken, Reinstating Common Sense: How Driver’s License Suspensions for Drug Offenses Unrelated to Driving Are Falling Out of Favor, Prison Policy Initiative, Dec. 12, 2016, available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/driving/national.html, [as of Jul. 2, 2019].)
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center: “Under current law, a young person involved in vandalism, disorderly conduct, drug possession, and a series of other offenses may lose their right to drive even though their offense had nothing to do with driving. This is unfair and impedes the very purpose of juvenile court intervention in young people’s lives, which is to provide ‘care treatment and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances.’ (Welf. & Inst. Code, §202.) S.B. 485 will eliminate such penalties for non-driving related offenses.

“The laws imposing driving restrictions on juveniles for non-driving offenses came about primarily in an era in which it was believed that more punishment would bring about rehabilitation. Since that time, juvenile experts have come to realize that loading youth down with long lists of probation conditions is unlikely to produce success. Best practices in probation now call for the imposition of many fewer conditions of probation, with an emphasis on imposing targeted conditions that will promote healthy development. (See, e.g., National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, Resolution Regarding Juvenile Probation and Adolescent Development (2018).) Restrictions on driving privileges for non-driving offenses are not targeted and do not promote healthy development.

“In the short run, driving restrictions may interfere with young people’s ability to travel to appointments and programs required by the terms of their probation. In addition, once driving privileges are restricted, it is much more likely that youth will intrude further into the system on technical probation violations. Most youth in the juvenile system come from poor or financially struggling families who may not be able to afford the costs of classes and administrative fees needed to reinstate the young person’s driver’s license. Because of this, they are more likely to drive without a license and to suffer the consequences of additional fines or incarceration.

“In the long run, restricting driving privileges for youth involved in non-driving offenses interferes with one of the great rites of passage to adulthood. Our laws are carefully written to allow young people successive levels of responsibility in first taking driver’s education, getting a permit, having provisional license, driving with restrictions on who can be in the car, and finally being allowed to have full adult driving privileges. By restricting driving privileges for offenses unrelated to driving, we are interfering with the ability of young people to learn the skill of driving and to move through successive stages of increased responsibility.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 1618 (Jones-Sawyer) would have removed the ability of the court and the DMV to suspend or delay someone’s driver’s license for a conviction of the crime of vandalism. AB 1618 was amended into an unrelated subject matter and is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2685 (Lackey), Chapter 717, Statutes of 2018, eliminated license suspensions for minors who are found to be habitually truant.
      
   2. AB 534 (Linder), of the 2015–2016 Legislative Session would have required the court to suspend the driving privilege for six months of any person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to hit and run with property damage if the charge is a substitute or in satisfaction of the charge of hit and run resulting in injury or death. AB 534 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      
   3. AB 2600 (Norby), of the 2011–2012 Legislative Session would have prohibited a person’s driving privilege from being suspended or revoked for a conviction of simple possession of marijuana. AB 2600 failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
   4. AB 2923 (Calderon), Chapter 434, Statutes of 2006, extended the license suspension length for a vandalism conviction to up to two years.
      
   5. AB 2331 (Goldsmith), Chapter 918, Statutes of 1996, required a one-year license suspension for a conviction of vandalism.
      
   6. SB 1977 (Kopp), Chapter 712, Statutes of 1990, authorized the court to suspend or delay someone’s driving privilege if they were convicted of vandalism.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Bus Association
California Public Defenders Association
Conference of California Bar Associations
Courage Campaign
Freedom 4 Youth
Initiate Justice
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Youth Justice Coalition

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: Matthew Fleming / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 485

Author: Beall (D), et al.

Amended: 5/17/19

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/2/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

SUBJECT: Driving privilege: suspension: offenses involving vehicle use

SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations

DIGEST:

This bill removes driver’s license suspension as a penalty for offenses that are not related to driving.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a court may suspend for 30 days the driver’s license of a person convicted of solicitation for prostitution that occurs when the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a residence and with a vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 13201.5; Penal Code § 647)
2. Provides that a minor who is convicted of any offense involving a firearm that is capable of being concealed, the court may suspend or delay the minor’s diving privilege for five years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.4)
3. Provides that if a person under 21 years of age is convicted of an alcohol related offense, that person’s driver’s license shall be suspended or delayed for one year. Or, the court may instead restrict the person’s license for up to six months and the restriction may include the requirement that an ignition interlock be installed. (Vehicle Code §§ 13202.5; 13202.8)
4. Provides that every person over the age of 13 who is convicted of vandalism shall have their driver’s license suspended or delayed for two years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.6)
5. Provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall suspend the driver’s license of an individual if that licensee’s name is included on a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000. (Business and Professions Code § 494.5)

This bill:

1. Repeals the license suspensions in the above sections.
2. Provides that notwithstanding any other law, and to the extent permitted by federal law, and to the extent federal funding is not jeopardized, the court and DMV shall not suspend or delay a person’s driving privilege based on that person’s conviction of a criminal offense not involving a violation of this code, unless the offense involved the use, or attempted use, of a vehicle and the suspension and delay is otherwise authorized by law.
3. Provides that it is not intended to affect any order or determination made by the court or the DMV before January 1, 2020, to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of a person.
4. Provides this bill is intended to remove the authority of the court and the DMV to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of the following persons pursuant to this bill:
   1. Persons who are convicted, on or after January 1, 2020, of an offense described in this act that would have been subject to the suspension, delay or restriction.
   2. Persons who were convicted, before January 1, 2020, of an offense described in this act that would have been subject to the suspension, delay or restriction, but whose driving privilege had not been suspended, delayed or otherwise restricted before January 1, 2020.

Comments

According to the author:

Suspending an individual’s driver’s license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. This approach does not increase public safety. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color. SB 485 prohibits suspending a driver’s license for non-vehicle related crimes.

A driver’s license is essential for people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not prevent individuals from committing those crimes. Such suspensions deter a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution.

In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people’s livelihoods depend on having a valid driver’s license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license. 1 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

In 2018, Chicago Jobs Council released a report, “Living in Suspension” highlighting the negative impacts of unnecessary driver’s license suspensions on people’s lives in Illinois. Their survey found that 52% of their respondents who had their licenses suspended because of non-driving violations missed an employment opportunity due to the suspension, 72% had to pay more than $500 to re-obtain a valid license and 31% had to may more than $3000 to re-obtain a valid license. 2 In Florida, Senators Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) and Darryl Rousen (D-St. Petersburg) filed Senate Bill 302 (2017) to end the suspension of non-driving related offenses. This was a bipartisan effort to significantly reduce the large number of suspensions each year.

California’s laws suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes are outdated and ineffective. The punitive action of suspending a driver’s license for acts unrelated to driving oversteps the DMV’s authority. At a time when California is dedicated to improving service at the DMV, eliminating workload that does not serve a public purpose is a benefit for DMV workers as well as customers.

SB 485 prohibits suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution.

Over the years, suspension of a driver’s license as a penalty was added to a number of provisions that are unrelated to driving. These include prostitution, vandalism and various alcohol related violations committed by a minor. This bill deletes driver’s license suspension as a penalty from these offenses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Delinquent tax collection: Unknown, potentially-significant loss in delinquent tax collection to the extent that driver license suspension is an effective tool in recovering the delinquent amounts. (General Fund, local funds)
• Department of Motor Vehicles: Likely minor cost savings in avoided workload to reinstate suspended driver licenses.
• Courts: No cost impact.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/19)

Conference of California Bar Associations (source)

ACLU of California

California Bus Association

California Public Defenders Association

Courage Campaign

Freedom 4 Youth

Initiate Justice

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Youth Justice Coalition

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/19)

None received

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: In support the ACLU of California states:

A driver’s license is essential for most people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not prevent individuals from committing those crimes. Such suspensions merely hinder a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment, and pay restitution. More than 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license. At a time when there are fewer jobs in low-income neighborhoods, forcing low-income workers to look for employment father from home, a suspended license can limit access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs. This in turn, further widens the income gap and forces more individuals and families into poverty.

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

5/20/19 13:31:24

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 485 (Beall) - Driving privilege: suspension: offenses involving vehicle use

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 16, 2019

Bill Summary:

SB 485 would prohibit the courts or the Department of Motor Vehicle from suspending a person’s driver license as a penalty for an offense that is not related to driving.

Fiscal Impact:

• Delinquent tax collection: Unknown, potentially-significant loss in delinquent tax collection to the extent that driver license suspension is an effective tool in recovering the delinquent amounts. (General Fund, local funds)
• Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV): Likely minor cost savings in avoided workload to reinstate suspended driver licenses.
• Courts: No cost impact.

Author Amendments:

Specify that the bill is prospective in application.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 485 (Beall) - Driving privilege: suspension: offenses involving vehicle use

Bill Summary:

SB 485 would prohibit the courts or the Department of Motor Vehicle from suspending a person’s driver license as a penalty for an offense that is not related to driving.

Fiscal Impact:

• Delinquent tax collection: Unknown, potentially-significant loss in delinquent tax collection to the extent that driver license suspension is an effective tool in recovering the delinquent amounts. (General Fund, local funds)
• Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV): Likely minor cost savings in avoided workload to reinstate suspended driver licenses.
• Courts: No cost impact.

Background:

Existing law provides for the suspension of individuals driver licenses during specified circumstances. These include a 30-day suspension if a person is convicted of solicitation for prostitution that occurs when the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a residence and with a vehicle; a five-year suspension if a minor is found to have committed an offense involving a firearm that is capable of being concealed; a one-year suspension if a person under age 21 is convicted of an alcohol-related offense; a two-year suspension or delay in issuing a license for a person over age 12 who is convicted of vandalism; and a suspension if an individual’s name appears on a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, with certain exceptions and to the extent permitted by federal law and federal funding is not jeopardized, prevent the courts or DMV from suspending or delaying a person’s driver license as a penalty of specified non-driving related crimes or for not paying taxes such that the person appears on the list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000.

Related Legislation:

AB 2685 (Lackey, Ch. 717, Stats. 2018) prohibited a juvenile court from suspending or delaying the issuance of a driver license for one year of a youth who is an habitual truant, as defined, or adjudged to be a ward of the court.

AB 103 (Committee on Budget, Ch. 17, Stats. 2017), in part, prevented courts from ordering a driver license suspension for a person who failed to pay court-ordered fines.

Staff Comments:

In the 2018 calendar year, there were a little over 6,000 driver licenses suspended or issuances delayed by DMV for matters within the scope of this measure. Specifically, there were 546 delinquent tax debtor license suspensions, six delinquent tax debtor motor carrier suspensions, 26 suspensions or delays resulting from a minor committing an offense involving a concealable firearm, 3,258 suspensions or delays resulting from the conviction of a person under age 21 of an alcohol-related offense, and 2,258 suspensions or delays resulting from the finding of a person age 13 or older committing vandalism. Among those individuals who appear on the list of the top 500 tax delinquencies over $100,000 and who have had their driver licenses suspended, it is unknown how many of those individuals paid the delinquent taxes because of the license suspension or because of some other factor (e.g., the publication of their names on the list). The Department of Tax and Fee Administration, however, maintains that driver license suspension is the main reason delinquent taxpayers contact the department and subsequently enter into payment arrangements to reinstate their licenses. To the extent that driver license suspensions and issuance delays are the only effective tool currently available to the department to collect passed due taxes, this bill could result in revenue loss to the General Fund.

While bills that enact changes to current practices and requirements generally are prospective in their application unless retroactivity is made explicitly clear, that understanding is not always the case. Statutory penalty reductions, for example, have been interpreted at times to have retroactive effect for the benefit of individuals who are still subject to greater punishment under previous laws. To avoid confusion, the author may wish to specify explicitly if the intent is that the effects of this measure apply prospectively only or also benefit those whose driver licenses are suspended currently.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: SB 485 Hearing Date: April 2, 2019

Subject: Driving Privilege: Suspension: Offenses Involving Vehicle Use

HISTORY

Source: Conference of California Bar Associations

Prior Legislation: None

Support: ACLU of California; California Bus Association; California Public Defenders Association; Courage Campaign; Freedom 4 Youth; Initiate Justice; National Association of Social Workers; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Youth Justice Coalition;

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is remove driver’s license suspension as a penalty for offenses that are not related to driving.

Existing law provides that a court may suspend for 30 days the driver’s license of a person convicted of solicitation for prostitution that occurs when the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a residence and with a vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 13201.5; Penal Code § 647)

This bill repeals the Vehicle Code Section and deletes the license suspension penalty from the Penal Code.

Existing law provides that a minor who is convicted of any offense involving a firearm that is capable of being concealed, the court may suspend or delay the minor’s diving privilege for 5 years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.4)

This bill repeals that section.

Existing law provides that if a person under 21 years of age is convicted of an alcohol related offense, that person’s driver’s license shall be suspended or delayed for one year. Or, the court may instead restrict the person’s license for up to 6 months and the restriction may include the requirement that an ignition interlock be installed. (Vehicle Code §§ 13202.5; 13202.8)

This bill repeals those sections.

This bill makes a number of related changes to the deletion of the requirement that a driver’s license be suspended for various alcohol related violations by a person under 21.

Existing law provides that every person over the age of 13 who is convicted of vandalism shall have their driver’s license suspended or delayed for two years. (Vehicle Code § 13202.6)

This bill repeals that section.

Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall suspend the driver’s license of an individual if that licensee’s name is included on a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000. (Business and Professions Code § 494.5)

This bill removes the requirement that a person’s driver’s license be suspended.

This bill provides that notwithstanding any other law, and to the extent permitted by federal law, and to the extent federal funding is not jeopardized, the court and DMV shall not suspend or delay a person’s driving privilege based on that person’s conviction of a criminal offense not involving a violation of this code, unless the offense involved the use, or attempted use, of a vehicle and the suspension and delay is otherwise authorized by law.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Suspending an individual’s driver’s license became a popular method of punishment in the 90s, whether or not the crime had anything to do with operating a vehicle. This approach does not increase public safety. It adds an unnecessary workload to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and financial burden on low-income families and people of color. SB 485 prohibits suspending a driver’s license for non-vehicle related crimes.

A driver’s license is essential for people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not prevent individuals from committing those crimes. Such suspensions deter a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment and, importantly, pay restitution.

In fact, financial burden may be the leading factor individuals drive with a suspended license. Because most people’s livelihoods depend on having a valid driver’s license, it increases the likelihood individuals will violate the law by driving with a suspended license. This leads to incarceration, fines and fees, and impounding vehicles, which all disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license.1 Due to lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods, a suspended license causes a decline in access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs, which then creates significant financial burden.

In 2018, Chicago Jobs Council released a report, “Living in Suspension” highlighting the negative impacts of unnecessary driver’s license suspensions on people’s lives in Illinois. Their survey found that 52% of their respondents who had their licenses suspended because of non-driving violations missed an employment opportunity due to the suspension, 72% had to pay more than $500 to re-obtain a valid license and 31% had to may more than $3000 to re-obtain a valid license.2 In Florida, Senators Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) and Darryl Rousen (D-St. Petersburg) filed Senate Bill 302 (2017) to end the suspension of non-driving related offenses. This was a bipartisan effort to significantly reduce the large number of suspensions each year.

California’s laws suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes are outdated and ineffective. The punitive action of suspending a driver’s license for acts unrelated to driving oversteps the DMV’s authority. At a time when California is dedicated to improving service at the DMV, eliminating workload that does not serve a public purpose is a benefit for DMV workers as well as customers.

SB 485 prohibits suspending driver’s licenses for non-vehicle related crimes. This bill eliminates an inefficient DMV process, while increasing the likelihood that those convicted will be able to maintain employment and pay restitution.

2. Driver’s license suspension as a penalty

Over the years, suspension of a driver’s license as a penalty was added to a number of provisions that are unrelated to driving. These include prostitution, vandalism and various alcohol related violations committed by a minor. This bill would delete driver’s license suspension as a penalty from these offenses.

3. Argument in Support

In general supporters of the bill point out that suspending a driver’s license for an offense unrelated to driving unnecessarily creates economic barriers for people.

The ACLU states:

A driver’s license is essential for most people’s everyday lives. Suspending licenses for non-vehicle related crimes does not prevent individuals from committing those crimes. Such suspensions merely hinder a person’s ability to care for their children, work, maintain employment, and pay restitution. More than 78% of Californians drive to work, and over five million jobs in California require a valid driver’s license. At a time when there are fewer jobs in low-income neighborhoods, forcing low-income workers to look for employment father from home, a suspended license can limit access to jobs in cities and suburbs where there are available jobs. This in turn, further widens the income gap and forces more individuals and families into poverty.

-- END –