Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02102004 - D2 Ds2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COU T Y9 CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 10, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Gioia,Greenberg, DeSaulnier and Glover NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Recommendations of the DUI(Drinking Under The Influence) u u ry to accept report from the District Attorney on behalf of the DUI(Drinking Under the Influence)Task Force regarding sanctions and treatment for repeat DLII offenders and multiple license-suspension drivers. The Board discussed the matter, and made the following recommendations: • APPROVED the recommendations regarding sanctions and treatment • REFERRED the following System Change Recommendations to County Administrator to begin working on implementation referring those recommendations to the appropriate Committees; 1. DUI"Intensive Enhancement Program"; 2. DUI Court; 3. Increasing and standardizing vehicle impound fees countrywide; and 4. Media Campaign; REFERRED the following to the Finance Committee:- • Enact a nickel per drink"user fee"earmarked specifically for local treatment and supervision of DUI offenders; • Authorize a levy of$1 on vehicle registrations to pay for DUI enforcement and prosecution; Motioned by Supervisor Greenberg, Seconded by Supervisor Gioia 1 Vote of"Supervisors AYES: Supervisor Gioia, Uilkema, Greenberg,DeSaulnier and Glover NOES. None ABSTAIN.- None ABSENT., None Following further discussions,the motion was amended to read as below: 1. ACCEPTED report presented by the District Attorney on behalf ofthe DUI (Drinking Under the Influence)Task Force regarding sanctions and treatment for repeat DTI offenders and multiple license-suspension drivers; 2. APPROVED legislative proposals except the following,which were referred in concept only and referred to the County Administrator for further study and recommendation to the Board; • Those pertaining to proof of a valid driver's license to register a vehicle; • Waiver of the booking fee for local agencies when they elect to book offenders for DUI; • increase in the length and intensity of current DUI programs; and • Enhancement of treatment and education for those convicted of alcohol related reckless driving, l. DIRECTED the County Administrator to study those proposals involving systemic changes in county service delivery and to make recommendations to the appropriate Board subcommittees; and 2. DIRECTED the County Administrator to work with Senator Torlakson's Office and the County's lobbyist, and return to the Board with any further recommendations. Vote cif Supervisors AYE'S: Supervisor Gioia, Uilkema, Greenberg, DeSaulnier and Grover NOES. None ABSTAIN.• None ABSENT. None The motion passed. 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: February 10,2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supe isors and County Administrator rt � Deputy Clerk 3 DU'l TASK FORCE Final Report Background The DUI Task Farce was created by this Board to study the issue of sanctions and treatment for repeat DUI offenders and multiple license suspension drivers. We were asked to come up with suggestions for improving the status quo in Contra Costa County. We were also asked to work with State Senator Torlakson's office to recommend appropriate new legislation that would strengthen penalties and reduce the impact on our communities of repeat DUI offenders and those driving on suspended licenses. The Task Force was originally composed of the District Attorney, the Sheriff-Coroner, the Chief Probation Officer, and the Public Health Director. At its first meeting, this group ,decided to expand and seek input from a number of other interested constituencies. As a result, the following individuals and agencies participated as members of the Task Force: Bob Kochiy District Attorney Paul Sequeira Senior Deputy District Attorney Steve Bautista Chief Probation Officer Lt. Greg Gilbert Sheriff's Office Chief Chris Wenzel Danville Police Department Sgt. Bill Hollan Walnut Creek Police Department Lt. Zachary Johnson California Highway Patrol Officer Cliff Kroeger California Highway Patrol Lt. Paul Fontana California Highway Patrol Dr. Wendell Brunner Public Health Director Steve Loveseth Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Don Spaugy Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Curtis Christy Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Steve Guderian National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Matthias Mendezona M.A.D.D. Adam Chow San Ramon Valley Community Against Substance Abuse Kathy Chiverton Chief of Staff, Supervisor Greenberg's Office Craig Cheslog Senator Torlakson's Office In approaching its mission, the Task Force recognized that it would not have the time or the resources to "solve" the problem of repeat DUI offenders or persons driving on a suspended license. Of 3,878 DUI cases filed in Contra Costa County in 2002, 870 of those offenders had at least one prior conviction. This represents 22% of our DUI population. Statewide, repeat offenders constitute 25% of the DUI population. As of January 2003, DMV records indicate there were 37,205 individuals residing in Contra Costa County whose driving privileges were suspended or revoked for some reason. This represents 5.4% of the total population of drivers in Contra Costa. How many of 1 these persons are driving illegally at any given time is unknown, but anecdotal information tells us that it is a significant percentage. The Task Force resolved itself to make practical recommendations for positive system changes in Contra Costa County. Often times, such changes require additional resources. The Task Force tried to suggest ways to make these changes pay for themselves, including recommending legislation, where necessary, that would enable local agencies to generate revenue to pay for enhanced services. Can the legislative side, the Task Force tried to keep its recommendations practical and attainable. We were guided, in large measure, by DMV findings that alcohol treatment, in conjunction with license restriction, has proven statistically to be the most effective post-conviction sanction in reducing subsequent DUI incidents among repeat DUI offenders. We took care to recommend several measures that would literally separate the DUI offender or suspended driver from his car, believing that this mechanism both drives home a point as well as removing the source of temptation. A. System Change Recommendations 1. DUI "intensive Enhancement Program". See Appendix A. The Task Force recommends that this County establish an Intensive Enhancement Program (IEP) for repeat DUI offenders and those with high BACs (Mood Alcohol Content). This program would require the participants, who represent the population most likely to re-offend, to participate in and complete a much more rigorous treatment program than currently required by law, as a condition of their sentence. The implementation of such a program would require the cooperation of the bench, which I believe would be forthcoming if such a program 'were operational. The key to success for this program, it is believed, is active supervision of the participants by the Probation Department, in a cooperative model with the treatment component, much as is currently done with Prop. 36 (Drug Treatment Initiative) probationers. A similar model is currently being used with great success in Clark County, Nevada. Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AOD) believes that it could cover a significant portion of the costs associated with the treatment component of this program by aggressively collecting increased user fees from their clients. Some additional funding could be needed. The Probation Department, however, has no formal probation services currently offered in misdemeanor cases, and would need additional revenues of close to $1 million per year to run such a program. There are several legislative proposals outlined later which could generate revenue for the Probation Department. 2 2. DUI Court. Specialty courts, such as Drug Court or Domestic Violence Court, have proven effective in recent years in reducing recidivism rates. These courts feature frequent, hands-on involvement by the Court in a participant's rehabilitation effort, using a carrot-and-stick approach. These courts put similar offenders together on specialized calendars, and the judges become expert on the applicable sentencing laws and the subtleties of cajoling compliance from the participants. However, these specialty courts are resource intensive for the judges, as well as all other participating agencies. DUI courts are one of the newer specialty courts being developed and utilized nationwide. The Task Force recommends that the County begin discussions with the Courts about the feasibility of establishing a DUI Court in Contra Costa County. 3. Increasing and standardizing vehicle impound fees countywide. Under current law, local law enforcement agencies are entitled to charge and collect an administrative fee, separate from the towing and storage fees charged by the tow company, before they release vehicles they have impounded for certain purposes. Some agencies don't charge a fee, and others charge varying rates. By case law, the fee must be defensible as covering the agencies' costs in administering the impound and release. It would foster more aggressive DUI and 14601 (suspended license) enforcement if all local agencies charged such a fee, and if the fee were uniform, and as high as reasonably possible. The County should assemble a committee to discuss current practices throughout the county, and try and get agreement on a uniform fee. 4. Media campaign. Some jurisdictions have had success in getting local print media to publish the names of DUI offenders. The prospect of being publicly humiliated if arrested for DUI has tremendous potential as a deterrent, particularly for middle-class, non-criminally oriented individuals, who comprise a large segment of first-time DUI offenders. The County should explore the feasibility of getting local print media, particularly the local weekly papers, to cooperate in such a campaign. B. Legislative Proposals 1. Eliminate DUI ,prior washout. Under current law, punishment and treatment as a multiple DUI offender is not mandated unless all prior arrest(s) for DUI occurred within 7 years of the current offense. This period, known as the "washout", is arbitrary, and serves as an 3