We're putting the finishing touches on a post stating our concerns about AB 91, the new California law requiring ignition interlock devices on vehicles operated by DUI offenders, signed yesterday by Governor Schwarzenegger. In a nutshell, our reservations deal with what we see as the law's violation of citizens' 14th Amendment equal protection rights. In the meantime, we're providing this summary of the law's provisions.
AB 91 does nothing to change the current system of license suspensions and other penalties for DUI convictions. It establishes a pilot program in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Tulare counties requiring people convicted of DUIs to have ignition interlock devices (IIDs) installed on their cars. This test program begins July 1, 2010, and expires on January 1, 2016, unless the legislature acts to renew it and possibly expand it to the rest of the state.
People convicted of DUI (California Vehicle Code 23152) will have to install IIDs on all vehicles they operate for these periods of time:
First offense - 5 months
Second offense - 12 months
Third offense - 24 months
Fourth offense - 36 months
People convicted of DUI and causing injury to another person (California Vehicle Code 23153) will have to install IIDs on all vehicles they operate for these periods of time:
First offense - 12 months
Second offense - 24 months
Third offense - 36 months
Fourth offense - 48 months
AB 91 requires that DUI offenders pay for the approximately $75 installation cost of the IIDs and $50 monthly monitoring expense unless they meet these criteria:
100% of the federal poverty level or less - pay 10% of the cost
101 to 200% of the federal poverty level - pay 25% of the cost
201 to 300% of the federal poverty level - pay 50% of the cost
Interestingly, the IID installers are required to absorb the portion of the costs not paid by people in the low-income level groups.
The law does provide an exemption for people who drive vehicles owned by their employers. With the approval of the court, an employer will not be required to install the IID on its vehicle if notified by the employee convicted of a DUI that his driving privilege has been restricted.
We support programs that reduce not just the number of DUI convictions but also the number of drunk drivers on the road, as long as those programs are clearly defined and do not violate our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Our next post will explain in detail the problems we have with this legislation, no matter how well intentioned it is.
