The measures now move to the opposite houses of the Legislature, a point where similar efforts have struggled in past years. If approved, the bills would affect drivers statewide, including across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where DUI enforcement and roadway safety remain frequent concerns for law enforcement and families of crash victims.

Hearings this spring exposed a sharp policy divide. Families who have lost loved ones in crashes, along with lawmakers pushing for tougher penalties, argued that California has too often allowed dangerous drivers to remain on the road. Progressive organizations, including the ACLU and other advocacy groups, urged lawmakers to focus more heavily on road design, traffic calming and prevention rather than expanding criminal penalties.

At a March hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Danica Rodarmel, speaking for Debt Free Justice California, opposed broader requirements for ignition interlock devices — in-car breathalyzers used by some DUI offenders. She said the systems can be costly and difficult for some drivers to manage.

“If we’re serious about prevention, we have to design systems that people can easily comply with,” Rodarmel told lawmakers. “I also understand that these concerns sound really minuscule when we’re talking about it compared to lives.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Southern California Democrat who is again trying to expand use of the devices, responded by focusing on the stakes.

“I could not agree more with that sentiment,” she said.

Among the bills still moving forward are two measures, AB 1662 and SB 953, aimed at closing what supporters call a diversion loophole. California’s diversion program is intended to help lower-level offenders avoid the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction. But in some cases, judges have granted diversion to drivers accused of killing someone, meaning the cases were not reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the drivers kept clean records. Critics say that can leave a driver facing less lasting punishment than someone cited for speeding.

AB 1830 would expand ignition interlock requirements. Most states require all people convicted of DUI to install the devices, but California currently mandates them mainly for repeat offenders or DUI crashes involving injuries. Even those requirements are not always enforced by courts, according to prior reporting on the issue.

AB 1546 would increase consequences for repeat DUI offenses. Under current law, prosecutors generally must wait until a fourth DUI within 10 years before charging the offense as a felony. The bill would make a third DUI within that period a “wobbler,” allowing prosecutors to pursue either misdemeanor or felony charges. It also would extend ignition interlock requirements or license suspensions for drivers with four or more DUIs in a decade.

SB 1198 would lengthen license suspensions and vehicle impoundment periods for drivers convicted of reckless driving.

Three other bills remain alive but have been narrowed.

SB 907 originally included five major provisions to increase DUI penalties. The remaining portions would add prison time for some repeat DUI offenders, enhance penalties for hit-and-run cases involving drivers with prior DUIs, and make it easier to charge repeat drunken drivers with murder if they kill someone. Removed provisions would have classified vehicular manslaughter as a violent felony in some cases and added prison time for fatal crashes involving multiple victims.

AB 1685 would change how vehicular manslaughter convictions count against a driver’s license. Currently, a vehicular manslaughter conviction counts as two points; a speeding ticket counts as one, and four points in 12 months can trigger a suspension. The original bill would have made all vehicular manslaughter convictions count as three points. As amended, it adds a third point only when the driver was intoxicated and acted with gross negligence.

AB 1687 would address license revocations for serious repeat offenses. State law now requires the DMV to revoke a license for three years after most felony vehicular manslaughter convictions or a third DUI. The bill initially would have required an eight-year revocation. The current version would allow, but not require, the DMV to impose the longer period.

Several other proposals have stalled or failed.

AB 1723 and AB 1874 sought to change when license revocation periods begin. Courts have sometimes failed to report manslaughter convictions to the DMV. When those cases were later flagged, the DMV has treated the revocation as if it began on the conviction date, meaning some drivers never actually lost their licenses. One proposal would have required the revocation period to begin when the DMV takes action; the other would have started the period when a driver is released from jail or prison after a manslaughter conviction.

AB 1686 would have allowed prosecutors to charge a second or third DUI as a felony, rather than generally waiting until a fourth DUI.

AB 1747 would have made all DUI vehicular manslaughter cases felonies. Under current California law, a driver who kills someone while intoxicated can still face a misdemeanor if prosecutors determine the driver did not act with gross negligence. The bill failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee after labor and human rights groups argued that existing law gives prosecutors appropriate discretion.

AB 1748 would have doubled the license suspension for a first-time DUI from six months to one year, lengthened suspensions for repeat offenders and required permanent license revocation after five DUI convictions within 10 years. It was rejected by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 2276 proposed a pilot program for “intelligent speed assistance” technology. Similar in concept to ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders, the proposal would have tested technology intended to prevent people convicted of reckless driving from speeding.

AB 1605 and AB 1867 were modeled on a Utah law restricting alcohol sales to repeat DUI offenders. The California proposals would have required the DMV to mark licenses with language such as “No alcohol sales” or “Repeat serious DUI offender.” One version included a lifetime ban on alcohol purchases for the most serious repeat offenders. The bills did not advance.

AB 1814 would have expanded law enforcement training requirements for field sobriety testing, drug recognition or impaired-driving investigations. The proposal failed to meet a key May legislative deadline.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Eight “License to Kill” Bills Advance in State Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.