AB 91

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) Existing law requires all manufacturers of ignition interlock devices that meet specified requirements and are certified in a manner approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, that intend to market the devices in this state, to first apply to the department on forms provided by the department and to pay an accompanying fee in an amount not to exceed the amount necessary to cover the costs incurred by the department in carrying out those provisions. This bill would require a manufacturer and a manufacturer's agent, certified by the department to provide ignition interlock devices, to provide each year to the department information on the number of false positives and the time to reset the device. The bill would also require the department to use this information in evaluating the continued certification of an ignition interlock device. (2) Existing law requires a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle to be suspended or revoked for a specified period of time if the person has been convicted of violating specified provisions prohibiting driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood or while addicted to the use of any drug, with or without bodily injury to another. Existing law also authorizes a person whose privilege is suspended or revoked in that manner to receive a restricted driver's license if specified requirements are met, including, in some instances, the installation of an ignition interlock device on the person's vehicle. This bill would require the department to establish a pilot program from July 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016, in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare that requires, as a condition of being issued a restricted driver's license, being reissued a driver's license, or having the privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subsequent to a conviction for a violation of the above offenses, a person to install for a specified period of time an ignition interlock device on all vehicles he or she owns or operates, except as provided. The amount of time the ignition interlock device would be required to be installed would be based upon the number of convictions, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit the implementation of the pilot program if the department fails to obtain, by January 31, 2010, nonstate funds for the programming costs of the pilot program. The bill would set up a statutory scheme under which the department would, with regard to the installation of an ignition interlock device described above, notify the person of the ignition interlock device installation requirements established under the bill, accept notification from the installer of the ignition interlock device of attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the ignition interlock device or if the person fails 3 or more times to comply with the maintenance requirements, monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock device, and keep specified records. The bill would also require that manufacturers and manufacturer's agents, certified by the department to provide ignition interlock devices, adopt a fee schedule for payment of the costs of the ignition interlock device based on the offender's ability to pay, and would require the court to adopt a similar fee schedule with regard to the fees for the county alcohol and drug problem assessment program. On or before January 1, 2015, the department would be required to report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program in reducing the number of first-time driving under the influence violations and repeat offenses in those counties. (3) This bill would require that it become operative only if SB 598 of the 2009–10 Regular Session becomes operative on or before January 1, 2010. (4) Because it is a crime to operate a vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device by a person whose driving privilege is so restricted, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of that crime. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.