Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, 08/11/2026. We do not yet have a quorum, although we're awaiting members to join us. I ask that all members please come to, Room 2200 in 1021 O Street, so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. We have two items on this morning's agenda.

File item one AB 1830 by Assembly member Petrie Norris, And filed in two AB 2796 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. That is not a consent item anymore?

Oh, no. It is.

That is a consent item. So when we establish a quorum, we're into a motion on the one consent item. And before we take up item one, just to summarize our public comment process, each author has designated two principal witnesses to testify in support of their bill. They'll each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. After which time, we'll invite any other members of the public who wish to express support for the bill.

And your testimony is limited to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We will not take any other extemporaneous testimony. After which time, we'll invite two principal opposition witnesses. Those opposition witnesses must have recorded their opposition by submitting written testimony in the portal prior to today's hearing. And then we'll invite members of public to express opposition.

Once again, you're limited to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We thank you for joining us today. And with that, we'll proceed to file number 1 AB 1830. And if there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table here. And good morning.

Good good morning, Mister Chair and members of the committee. I'm honored to join you this morning to present Assembly Bill 1830. A measure that will help prevent drunk driving tragedies before the car even starts. Drunk driving is an epidemic across America. Everyday, drunk drivers kill thirty seven Americans.

And, sadly, California is the epicenter of this crisis. With eight of the 10 deadliest cities for DUIs right here in the state of California. These are preventable deaths. And as I said, the measure before us will help to save lives with every start. What's in front of you today is the product of months of technical negotiations with the DMV and the administration to build a program that works at statewide scale.

For nearly two decades, colleagues in the legislature have attempted to pass some version of this bill, including, three years of effort, that I have that I have been doing alongside many of my colleagues. I do believe that with your help and with the the shared commitment of, our committees and, the legislature that will be able to get this bill to the governor's desk and make California's roads safer.

I am going to go into a fair bit of detail about the bill just because I think there's been, quite a lot of conversation and some confusion, about what the measure before us does. So, the bill before us replaces a limited repeatedly extended pilot program with one permanent statewide IID ignition interlock device program. This consolidates years of overlapping and sometimes conflicting statute into a single coherent framework.

As it was passed out of this committee last year, the measure requires an ignition interlock device for every alcohol involved DUI conviction, including first time offenders. This aligns California policies with 35 other states that already require IIDs for all convicted drunk drivers. The bill expands and better targets California's financial assistance program. So that cost is not a barrier to compliance. The bill establishes a separate framework for drug only DUI offenses, recognizing that IIDs can only detect alcohol right now, not, drugs.

The bill creates a clear pathway for alcohol related DUI offenders to remain mobile for all professional and personal responsibilities. The bill decouples the running of the IID term from completion of other reinstatement requirements, creating an important distinction between finishing the IID clock and eligibility for full reinstatement and expressly recognize, recognizes an individual's IID time served. The good news is that we know that ignition interlock devices work.

The 35 other states in the country that have enacted requirements for ignition interlock devices for first time offenders have seen drug, sorry, alcohol related fatalities and injuries decline. At the same time, that California has seen their death rates and injury rates climb at a precipitous rate.

But in California alone, in 2023, IID stopped more than 30,000 attempts to start a car by someone with a blood alcohol content of point 08% or higher. 30,000 documented moments where this technology kept a drunk driver off of our roads. Just think of the tragedies that these technologies have already prevented. The CDC finds that IIDs reduce repeat DUI offenses by some 70%. And California DMV found that IIDs are 74% more effective than license suspension alone at reducing recidivism amongst first time offenders.

Two issues have come up consistently in stakeholder conversations. So I want to address both of those directly, in these opening comments. The first is manufacturer compliance. We have heard and take very seriously concerns that not every certified IID manufacturer has consistently complied with existing income verification and reduced fee requirements. We recognize that it's imperative that Californians can access, access financial assistance and be able to, access a complaint process should a provider fall short.

Second is related to reporting and data collection. As introduced, this bill included, reporting requirements of the DMV, language that was carefully negotiated in which we certainly stand by. With that, as I said, I believe that the bill before us will take an important step to make California roads safer and to save lives in every community across our state.

I'm really honored to be joined today by my co author and champion for California families, Senator Archuleta, who would like to, with your permission, Mister Chair, make a few comments before we welcome our our primary witness.

Thank you, Mister Chair and and members. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you as a colleague, as a private citizen, as a grandfather who lost his daughter and members of my family that to this day cannot even think about even going forward to the next Christmas because it was Christmas Eve when my Samantha was killed by a drunk driver. And after they've drove two, three times, We're still trying to ascertain that.

But we know that publicity and asking for people not to drink and drive and impaired, we can do that forever. But we have a system.

We have an opportunity to actually put something in the automobile that will maybe save another life. The ignition interlock devices. That's why I'm supporting Assembly Bill 1830. And I will continue to support every bill, every issue, and everything that we can possibly do to stop these drunk drivers, repeat offenders. We've got to.

And we've got to give our judges the opportunity to place them in rehabilitation if we have to, give them some opportunities to change their ways. I get that. But if with the interlock device is there, maybe their own families won't have to suffer. Because when a drunk driver kills one, oftentimes they kill themselves. So we're trying to save lives.

So I come before you with the support that I give and the support that so many across this nation. As you know, 30 states have already agreed that this is the way to go. California should also be right there with them. And I think that all of us can look back at each holiday we've had with our families, but imagine getting a phone call that said there's an accident. And then it took time to identify my granddaughter and they only could do it with a fingerprint.

Can imagine. That was I just can't I just can't begin to tell you the pain. But I will tell you this, that I'm proud of every Senator, every Assembly member who's willing to stand up and mad, and everyone who can stand up and say, we're gonna do something about it. We are doing something about it, and this is a big step. And I know that the the drunk drivers, even themselves, will realize that thank you.

Thank you for having that because it is a way to be proactive. And if we can save one life, we've done our job. But in this case, we'll be saving thousands and upon thousands. So the debate goes back and forth, but I think it's time for us to take on this bipartisan issue head on and say that we're not gonna allow drunk drivers anymore.

We're going to give people the opportunity to change their ways, give people the opportunity to when they turn on that ignition, it's because they can drive safely.

They are ready to hit the road, not damage their families or anyone else. So it's so important that we understand that across California, we've got to support every law enforcement, every district attorney, everyone I talk to, highway patrol across this nation, everyone is in support of some method, some way to deviate from this tragedy that happens every holiday. And we just had the proms. Young kids were killed. We just had a tragedy.

You pick up the paper every single day. Someone is killed by a drunk driver. So let's stop it. Let's go ahead and do something about it, and that's why I Senate bill 1830 is so vital, so important. And I thank you, Mister Chair, for allowing me to jump in.

Thank you very much, Senator. Okay. Before we go to our witness, we do have a quorum. So if the committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. And good morning. Thank you for joining us, and you may begin your presentation.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Colin Campbell. I'm a national board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And on 06/12/2019, I was driving my family to Joshua Tree for a summer vacation.

My 17 year old daughter Ruby just got an emeritus scholarship to study at the Art Institute of Chicago. And my son Hart, 14 years old, handsome, hilarious Hart was gonna spend the whole summer dating girls and playing video games. And a drunk driver going 90 miles an hour hit us at full speed, didn't touch the brakes. I was knocked unconscious when I came to look in the back seat. I saw Ruby and Hart's eyes were wide open.

Their pupils were pitch black. Their necks were snapped, and they were both dead. The woman who killed my children was multiple DUIs. There was a warrant out for her arrest for violation of probation of a previous DUI. Nothing was gonna stop her from drinking and driving that night except a bill like AB 1830.

Why wasn't there an interlock device in her car? It was because a judge used their discretion. I've been to prison and I've talked with this woman. Her name is Nicole Packer. I spent four and a half hours talking with her.

She's a mother with three young children. She struggled with drug and alcohol addiction her entire life. She would give anything anything in the world to have an IED IDD device in her car to prevent her from driving that night. Right? Her life was destroyed as well.

So instead of being a mother, now she's a murderer and she's in prison and her family's destroyed and my family's destroyed. Every year, hundreds of California families are destroyed like mine and Nicole's. And I want you all to stop it please. So please pass this bill. Thank you so much for your support.

Thank you so very much. Okay. We'll invite any other members of the public who wish to express support for AB 1830 to please come forward and please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Nicole Wordleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Kevin Guzman on behalf of California Medical Association in support.

Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association also in support.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolman in support.

Good morning. Justin Fanslau on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition in support.

Tim Chang with the Auto Club Southern California in support.

And Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1830? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now invite two principal opposition witnesses.

Thank you Mr. Chair members. Thank you, Mister Chair members. Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice, statewide association of criminal defense lawyers.

Private practice also work in public defender offices. We are respectfully in opposition. First, let me say I have the utmost respect for the author for taking on this issue and for the work on this. And also respect for the witness that just testified about family's tragedy. Our opposition takes nothing away from how much we respect and understand this is a very difficult issue.

And there are a lot of tragedies that, you know, all of us have faced, you know, in our families or with our friends including myself. That being said, the policy making process also requires us to not only consider that, but to look at what will be perhaps the most effective policy. And in the interest of time, let me just say three things. One is, California, Florida, and Texas are the states with the most number of drivers. And so getting the policy correct is critically important.

We're concerned that the way the bill is drafted, and having mandatory on every DUI, is going to reach individuals that statistically are not likely to reoffend. In California, ninety six percent of first time DUI offenders do not reoffend within the first year. That number has been consistent for years. And one of the reasons why we have posed a statewide mandate on first time offenses. Current law allows a judge to impose an IID on a first time offense based on the circumstance of that specific case.

We believe that is a better policy. If there's going to be, and I shall also mention that between seventy five and eighty five percent of DUI fatalities in California are by first time offenders. So this bill would not address those cases. We have a number of suggested amendments. In interest of time, I'll just go through them very quickly.

But I hope we have a robust discussion. Happy to answer any questions. Number 1, we would be open to a mandate on first time offenders with a high BAC and a prior moving violation in the past 2 to three years. The statistics show those are the folks that are most likely to re offend. Number 2, we would want more robust enforcement of the sliding fee scale for installers.

And the penalties need to be increased. Number 3, we would like to see, a study of to understand why fifty percent of of DUI arrests in California consistently are Latino drivers. There's some disproportionate enforcement going on. There are a number of other things that we'd be open to to help prevent first time offenses, but we think the better approach is to have high BAC, which is actually the law in Florida. Texas does not have a mandatory IID on first time offenses.

So we think we would match Florida and actually have a better policy. So I'll just stop there and thank you for your time.

Yeah. Good morning everyone. I'm Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez here on behalf of the local one forty eight union at the LA County Public Defender's Office. And, we respectfully oppose this bill. It seems that this bill is being pushed under, the principle of public safety while not allowing for this IID device to be provided for free.

If it's a public safety issue, why not make it free? And, you know, I understand that there's a part in the bill that says that it's gonna make it more affordable, but there are people with no jobs, people that can't even afford a car who are gonna be suffering under this rule. And not because they're bad people that wanna rebel against it, but because they cannot afford the condition. And that means that the issue is going to be the fact that they are poor.

Under the constitution of California, legislators, must take notice that even though a law may appear neutral, they still need to consider the fact that it may disproportionately impact marginalized people, here being poor people.

And even though poor people are not necessarily a protected class, they tend to be disproportionately represented by black and brown people. And so under the California constitution article one section seven, a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. And even though this applies to fundamental rights, that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to privileges.

So the laws that impact the privileges of people still need to be accounted for and it is protected under the equal protection clause. This bill takes away discretion from judges.

Judges look at facts of a case and they balance the facts and with the facts, they decide what the punishment should be. What this bill does is that the judge is going to look at people, not have that kind of power, and impose a condition that is going to be impossible for those that are extremely poor to the point where they can't afford this condition, making them vulnerable to probation violations, making them vulnerable to incarceration.

Not because they don't want to abide to the law, but because they cannot afford to do so. Disproportionately impacting the liberty, the freedom of the marginalized. Marginalizing the marginalized even further.

So another thing that I believe this bill will do is that punishment will continue even after they Max out. Going against the principle of punishment that when someone serves their entire punishment, they should be free from further punishment. This bill continues that punishment. And so for those reasons, I do believe that you should think very critically about who is going to be disproportionately impacted if this bill passes and yeah. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1830?

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, oppose unless amended.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal action in strong opposition.

Okay. Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments from members of the committee who would like to begin the discussion. Senator Caballero.

I have to run and take a phone call real quick so I wanna get this out. Let me just say that I'm gonna start off by saying, that despite the fact that I did criminal defense work for many, many years, I am very sympathetic to what you're trying to do here. And, and my good friend, Senator Archuleta, I was there when he got the news, about his granddaughter. And my heart hurts for the Archuleta family. And, quite frankly, the Christmases will never be the same.

There's no just no question about it. And I resent people taking clips out of hearings and and taking them out of context, and using them for political means. So I'm hesitant to make any comments because that's exactly what was done the last time that there was a bill that I had some issues with. So having said that, getting it off my chest, there I understand what you're trying to do here.

And, but I also understand the the economic consequences of not being able to comply with a program that is very expensive.

It's one of the pieces of the sentencing process that costs, well, everything costs money. The fine costs money if you if you're sentenced to jail. It costs you money if you're, if you if you have to take classes. And that's not to say people shouldn't have to learn and have have consequences. It's a question of can we make it so that people who don't have the resources don't get caught up in this cycle where you're perceived as being unwilling to do the program.

You're perceived to be unwilling to pay for it. You're perceived, if there's a malfunction, you obviously were messing around with the machine. Whatever the excuses are. So number 1 is I wanna make sure that people don't go to jail if they can't do if they can't afford to pay the IID. And like you're always calling it something different that so I apologize if I use the the other acronym.

And that and then I'm not really sure well, so I the judicial discretion for the first time, I think, should be there. But that's not the biggest concern. The biggest concern I have is over the payment. And really, the state should pay for it if we think it's gonna be that effective. And the reason we don't is because then that's budget bait and you won't get out of a probe.

So I understand that completely. But I think we need that the company has to tell we have to manage what companies are eligible in California. And then they need to they need to advise people that are installing the device that there's a program, if there are if they don't have the resources that can help them pay for it.

And if there's a violation, either missed a payment, missed the the calibration doesn't work or missed the calibration, or somehow they fall off the program that there's no fine or jail time. I just think that that's gonna be really important if we wanna keep the system honest about really being available for everybody of, everybody included those that have limited means.

And in regards to the rolling checks, they've gotta be manageable. I think it's a good it's a good safety measure to be able to blow at the beginning. And if you're cleared, you can drive. And then as you're driving, to be able to, to if there's a way to check to make sure you're still the same driver, to check, that has to be safe. And I haven't I don't know enough about that to feel comfortable with it.

But I think it's, maybe you pull over, you have to do something in order to be able to do it. I let me just say that I think the IIDs can be a tool in the toolbox, but I want it to be fair. I'm gonna support your bill today. I know that you are considering the potential for amendments if it goes to a Props and gets out. There's no guarantee I'll support it on the floor, however.

So I just wanna be clear. Those are the the my biggest concerns with the the status of the bill right now.

Well, thank you, Senator, for those comments. Let me respond to a couple of the the issues that that you raised and and things that were, echoing some of the concerns of the opposition witnesses. So let me start with the concern about cost and ensuring that this program is implemented fairly. So California's Ignition interlock, device program, we have the most generous financial assistance in the nation. This will strengthen that assistance.

If you are, with the most generous subsidy amounting to a cost of 30¢ per day, 30¢ per day. And that is for you know, I'm happy to to send you the fee schedule. But I think that we have, you know, an incredibly generous program. And I think I would also, put forward for your consideration for the consideration of the committee and frankly for the consideration of the opposition witnesses that it's actually important. It's actually important for people to have some skin in the game.

And, like I shared this story in one of the committee hearings. So so many of us have experience with drunk driving incidents tragically and, mine is related to my brother. So my brother has struggled with substance abuse and alcohol addiction. He, was convicted of a DUI. Long story, he actually spent time in in prison for other offenses.

About three years ago, he was released from prison. And for the very first time in his life, he was in a position where he was sober. He was working to get his life on track and he was going to try to get a driver's license. Now, my brother lives in North Carolina. Guess what?

North Carolina doesn't have these generous subsidy programs like the state of California. My brother is a fast food minimum wage worker in the state of North Carolina. He had to save his money to have enough money to install the device, to afford these payments. And you know what? I don't think that was a bad thing for my brother.

I think it made him understand that it's a privilege to get behind the wheel of a fast moving vehicle that can kill other people. And so I could have said to my brother, you know what? Gosh. You're you're poor. You don't have any money.

Let me give you let me give you the money you need. I didn't do that because I think it was important for him to understand that. So for my brother, that, you know, has been part of his journey and, you know, he has continued to stay sober. He has continued to be able to drive. He has continued to be able to support himself.

So I'm proud of the the progress that he's made, but I'm also grateful. I'm also grateful that he wasn't able to get behind the wheel of a car without ensuring that he was safe to drive. Because as you heard from from Mister Campbell, when these tragedies happen, they destroy the lives of of people like Mister Campbell. They also destroy the life of the person who has made that horrible decision to get behind the wheel. And so I believe that these are preventable tragedies.

I believe that we can save lives with this approach. The second point I'll address is the point that you made about, the, manufacturers. And, I think as I as I noted in, my opening comments, you know, we certainly, you know, take very seriously concerns that not every certified IID manufacturer has consistently complied with existing income verification and reduced fee requirements. For all the reasons that you stated, that is a real problem. It undercuts the affordability protections that the program depends on.

And we will continue to work with this committee and with the administration to ensure that we get that piece right and that we strengthen the oversight and enforcement of manufacturers and installers. And, you know, it's important that, you know, anyone under this program can can access a system where they can file complaints. That was one of the reasons we worked really closely with the DMV to improve the implementation of the program overall.

And I guess the last point I'll address address, because you raised it as opposition, is the point, regarding judicial discretion. So, you know, that is current law.

And right now, whether a first time drunk driver has to install an IID depends almost entirely on the county that they get arrested in. So that's not, in my view, a public safety policy. That's a lottery. So, you know, 11 counties, including Los Angeles, never have never ordered a first time offender to install one at all. And Sonoma County has ordered it to be installed in 72% of conviction.

So to your point about fairness, what we're doing right now really seems to fly in the face of fairness for all Californians. And I would say, you know, the last thing that I think is just so important for us to center, in this conversation is that, the policy before us, the requirement to install an Ignition interlock device. The reason that I want to advance this is because it is a way for people to continue to get to work and have a job.

It's a way for people to continue to have a driver's license and stay mobile. So I think that this approach ensures that we aren't keeping anyone anyone from earning a living and being able to get on with their lives.

And as I said, with the incredibly generous subsidy, I believe that it is absolutely a fair and equitable approach.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it. As I stated at the beginning, I don't have I think it's it's this is really important work to do. It's the devil's in the details. And part of the challenge is that we all have vignettes that we can talk about.

And I really appreciate you sharing, your, family, story because, it I do agree that people need to have skin in the game. There's just no question about it. And they have to feel the consequences of their And what I like about the bill is that it does provide an opportunity for people to be able to get to work in regions where public transportation just does not exist.

And in my rural region, it's pretty impossible to find a job that isn't thirty minutes away, which means you gotta get on the road and you gotta drive somewhere. And more often than not more often than not, my clients, because I represented farm workers, drove without licenses or drove on suspended licenses because that's how they get to work and that's how they pay their bills.

And so we wanna we wanna make sure that that isn't happening. So we've got whatever it is that we're putting in the vehicles has to work, and has to work for them as well. And so, I expressed to you my concerns. I think this is a really good bill. It's just got some tweaks that I think may make it better.

And I just don't wanna see us set up a system where people are just driving a suspended license because they can't the the ID is too difficult to to implement. So thank you for that.

Thank you so much, Senator. I really appreciate your, your engagement on this. Thank you.

Senator Cortese?

Yeah. I'll be first of all, let me thank the author for approaching me a couple times, and particularly as Chair of the next committee that this bill is going to. And we've had discussions and an offer of a one sentence amendment, one sentence to cover judicial discretion in extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances are well defined in case law that was not responded to favorably.

So I'll be staying off today and whether or not, you know, the bill makes it to the four or not makes it through my committee.

I can't vote I can certainly vote for a bill as I told the author that makes this the default in every county in California, in the state of California. But I won't vote for a bill that tells the judges in this in this state and in every county that there's never an extraordinary circumstance that they're gonna face in sentencing that shouldn't be treated differently in terms of an IID. That's, I think, extremely inappropriate. I appreciate the the witness testimonies.

I really appreciate my seatmate, Senator Archuleta, you know, for having the continued courage to talk about his situation.

We all have, you know, as, you know, associate my comments generally overall just in the interest of efficiency here with, Senator Caballero. And, you know, there are significant victim experiences in my family as well, including my mother. But as a matter of of a judicial principle, I would not take discretion away from every judge in California because of my personal situation. That's not how I vote here as as a state Senator. I appreciate the victim testimony about repeat offenders.

We've held hearings on that. We've I think we've generally all agreed that that's an area that needs to be stepped up, especially in terms of DMV replications. Those folks shouldn't be not only should not be driving, should not be allowed to drive in almost all circumstances. But that's not the bill before us today.

The bill before us today is saying every single first time offender, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the fact pattern, essentially has no hope of that piece of the defense.

And it is a piece of the defense that would allow them, you know, to argue on sentencing that in their particular circumstance, fact pattern or situation that an IID should be considered off the table due to those extraordinary circumstances. So that's where I'm at. And, you know, we haven't we you know, we've all had an opportunity to view the the bill in print, you know, overall.

But I would say a lot of the things that we've heard just with two senators speaking already, would have been opportune to negotiate and discuss at much greater detail than we've had an opportunity to do. I certainly as this committee have not had an opportunity to weigh in on public safety amendments that might make the bill a better bill.

And we are all as authors in a position to accept from our colleagues, especially those, with professional experience. Like, my colleague who spoke before me, to make a bill better. I mean, this is what we do here. And I haven't seen those kind of suggestions accepted at this point. So or worked with.

So I'll be staying off. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Vice Chair Seyarto? Oh.

I and I guess I'd sort of say two things. So first, I think to, you know, the question of the this and I, you know, appreciate your forthrightness, both in our private conversations as well as here before committee. I think to the, the point about judicial discretion, I think perhaps you and Mister Chair and I should have a conversation about that. I think, you know, the central conundrum is I think there's a desire to ensure that this is implemented fairly and equitably across the state.

And as I said, we wanna make sure that it doesn't depend on which courthouse you walk into or whether you can afford to hire a fancy defense attorney or, you know, any of the other factors that other members of this committee are concerned about in terms of what, you know, judicial discretion might introduce.

So open to that conversation. Was surprised to hear you say that you don't feel like you've had the time to consider the bill. I know that, you know, the bill has been before your committee since June, and I have been, you know, eager and open to discuss and dive into it with you at any point since that time.

If I may through the Chair, what I suggested is that I have not had time as a member of this committee or an opportunity or an invitation to help negotiate amendments to the bill here, and I'm staying off here. That's where the bill is being heard right now. We certainly I've certainly had an opportunity to review what amounts to about a ream of paperwork, you know, that you have provided in, advocates have provided, your sponsors have provided, and I appreciate that.

But judicial discretion is a term of art. It has nothing to do with one county applying rules different than another county.

That's a different issue than what we're talking about what I'm talking about here. And, you know, I think there's just a sharp difference of opinion as to whether that's necessary or not.

And, you know, I'm sure I'm sorry that we have a difference of opinion on that, but it's, you know, it's where I stand on these on this issue, and I think it's I think it's actually a generous amendment that preserves the very principles of checks and balances in our system and what the judicial branch is there to do and what our public defenders and other defense attorneys are there to do while at the same time making your bill the default.

And in every case, unless there's an actual finding of extraordinary circumstances in the judicial branch. So if we can't get there in agreement, obviously, you get to proceed with your bill as long as you continue to have the votes and I understand that's how it works here.

Thank you again, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Look forward to continued conversation, Senator.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. So, you know, I'm going to apologize in advance. I'm not as sympathetic with people that get themselves into the situation of going out and drinking and killing somebody. I've probably seen more dead bodies from drunk driving than anybody in this room put together. And it's it's it's something that doesn't go away.

You know, somebody this this notion that somehow, you know, somebody can't afford the $54 to rent this thing for the six months that they need to rent it for. They spend more than that on the alcohol that they buy. They can stop buying alcohol. They can stop drinking. That's their choice.

Nobody has the privilege of driving while illegally intoxicated. There is no privilege for that. There's no law that says you get to do that. If that's your freedom. Drunk driving is a scourge, and nothing we have done seems to be making the impact that we need to make. When you get caught drunk driving, blowing into a tube, to make your, make it okay for your vehicle to start, is the least of our worries.

The most of our worries is that they don't. That some judge decides, ah, this one deserves a pass. We're gonna let them go let this one pass. I've seen way too many of those. Way too many of them.

They're called repeat offenders. They go out there time and time again. And they got out there because the first time they offended, they got a slap on the wrist. The first time they got the first time they went down the freeway at a 100 miles an hour, three times the legal limit, they didn't actually, they didn't kill anybody. So they get a slap on the wrist.

They get a fine. Well, sometimes that fine is $10,000. And if somebody can pay a $10,000 fine, then some of that money can be used for their, this device. I haven't always been a fan of these type of interventions, but watching our failures for so many years in trying to stop the part that this gentleman here has to live with for the rest of his life. I don't know what else, what the hell else to do.

It's absurd. You know, we make excuses. We make excuses. These people go out there and keep doing it, even your first time. So I applaud you on your effort to try and get this You know, there's a lot of things we can get hung up on.

A lot of our bills get killed. People get hung up on our bills. Little technicalities here and there. But the big effort that you're trying to do is to stop that, Stop that from happening. You would do a lot of first responders a favor by not letting that happen.

So for all you folks that think that you're gonna fix this by, you know, slapping somebody on the hand, by making excuses for, well, you know, it's, you know, it it affects them where they won't be able to go to work. BS. Get a bus pass. Get a ride. Get a bike.

Get electric bikes, don't even have to pedal. But for Pete's sake, we gotta hold people accountable for their crappy behavior. Making excuses for them is not going to help them. Not gonna keep them from doing what they're doing like this. So anyway, I'll be supporting your bill.

Whatever form it comes out of, I hope we can resolve all these concerns. But the sterile environment of a courtroom, does not compare with seeing that over and over and over.

So thank you. Senator.

Well, I wanna thank my colleagues for their comments. And I do have a a do pass recommendations bill. But I appreciate the author's willingness to strengthen language in the bill on making sure that installers are complying with the affordability provisions that there's notice to people about the opportunity to be eligible for subsidized partially subsidized because this is sliding scale on the basis of your level of of income at the poverty level installation. And then also holding the installers accountable to make sure that they're complying with the law as well.

I think that's a really critical piece to make sure this law works. I do wanna just call attention to one issue.

I think it's a technical issue that Smart Justice did raise in their letter, which is I think this may have been changed through the the DMV amendments, but there is a change to the definition of driving the bill that uses a phrase physical control. And the current law says that you you have to be driving or operating the vehicle.

I'm concerned that if you are, you know, in a car, the car isn't on and and you're just sitting there, that that could that could be constitute as physical control. I don't think that's the intent. And so my understanding your office is expressed the willingness to talk to the DMV and get clarification on this point.

I just wanna make sure that we get that get that clarified because I think the intent is if you're driving, operating the vehicle, that's when that's when it's it's an offense. But if somebody's just sitting behind a vehicle and it's not on or sleeping in a vehicle, does that mean they have physical control? I don't think that's the intent. So I just wanna raise Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for that question. And I think you've clarified and summarized the issue very well. And, you know, certainly, yes, that is, what you described is consistent with with our intent that, yes, you are driving the vehicle. Yes. Full stop.

Yeah. I mean, if somebody is intoxicated and we don't want them driving the vehicle. Right. So if they

That's yes. It's supposed to yes.

If you try to start it, it doesn't work. If you decide to sleep it off, that's a good outcome. Yes. 100%.

Sitting there.

Okay. Great. Okay. We have had discussion to see if there are any other questions or comments. And just say that, you know, this is one of several bills that is moving to the legislature, including a bill by our colleague, Senator Archuleta.

I think builds on one, reporting by CalMatters this year that talked around the real lack of of of accountability by DMV over people that are engaging reckless driving and driving under the influence. I think builds on I think some of the conversations you started earlier this year with the joint hearing that we had with the Senate Transportation Committee on the issue of impaired driving.

And so there are many different bills that try to tackle this issue in a variety of ways, including repeat offenders, which is a very very serious issue. But this is really trying to get ahead of the issue to make sure that once the first offense happens, that one, we are creating a disincentive for people to continue to drive impaired. So that people don't become repeat offenders and have the tragic consequences including what what you and your family have had to endure.

And to also make sure that if somebody is driving that they're not driving impaired and we can make sure that they're safe driving on our roads. So I thank you for bringing this bill forward and I'll turn it back over to you to make a closing statement.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. And I I do wanna just thank you and your committee staff for your engagement on this bill, as well as the DMV and the administration. And I really wanna thank, Colin and the other mad advocates who have been here throughout this legislative session to advocate for this bill, advocate, for other for Senator Archuleta's bill and for other bills, that are a part of this package to make California roads safer. And I'll say and, apologize in advance if I get emotional.

So my son, Dylan, is 19, and he, and his friends just went on a road trip. And I'll say as I lay in bed, the first night he left, I found myself thinking of Colin and of Ruby and Hart and of your road trip and praying praying for my son. And so I just wanna say thank you so much for being here because you aren't here to save those the lives of those beautiful kids.

You're here to save the lives of my kids and your kids and all of our kids. So I am really, really grateful for everything that you and MADD are doing to advance policies to make California roads safer and to save lives all across the state. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. I'll take a motion on the bill. Moved by Senator Weiner. Okay. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Transportation. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. And thank you very much, Assemblyman. We thank you very much for listening.

Thank you very much Mister Chair and committee members.

Thank you. We have the consent calendar which is filed in 02/2796. I'm trying to motion. Moved by Senator Wiener. Thank you.

If we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

No. Consent. Oh. Yeah. We have to start from the top.

Oh. I'm sorry.

Okay. Consent is is filed into AB 2797.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bell on call for absent centers. And thank you, colleagues.

We will recess the committee. I believe Senator Perez will be coming to cast your votes. Thank you.

Reconvene the Senate public safety committee hearing. And we had bill presentations.

And so, we will start first with the vote on the consent calendar, which consists of file item two, AB 2796 by the Assembly committee on public safety. If we can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent is approved on a vote of 6 to 0. And then we'll now take a filing on one AB 1830 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The motion is due passed the Committee on Transportation.

AB 1830, the motion is due passed to Transportation. [Roll Call]

Okay. That bills out on a vote of 5 to 0. With that, that com that is our agenda. This meeting is now adjourned.