Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03061990 - 1.34 f 1-03 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contr FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa February 26, 1990 �'..,- =_ Y� DATE: �sCounty TA couK� SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 1150 (Lockyer) SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECONIlIENDATION Continue the Board' s position of SUPPORT for SB 1150 by Senator Lockyer which would increase the period of driver' s license suspension when an individual is convicted of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug or of refusing to undergo a chemical test to determine the individual' s blood alcohol level and would make related changes in the procedures to be followed in making such a determination. BACKGROUND On February 27 , 1990 the Board of Supervisors voted to support SB 1150 by Senator Lockyer. The bill has now been amended again. Under current law, a person' s privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be suspended or revoked if the person is convicted of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, driving with an excessive blood alcohol concentration, driving while addicted or if the person refuses to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood, breath or urine after arrest for those offenses. The period of suspension or revocation is enhanced if the person has had convictions of separate offenses of that prohibition or, in certain circumstances, convictions of reckless driving involving alcohol, within a specified 7 year period. Also under current law, the Department of Motor Vehicles may suspend the person' s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for 6 months on a first violation or one year on any subsequent violation within 7 years if the department finds administratively Yes CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE .4 APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): e&6k� & �X� ACTION OF BOARD ON March 6, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator MAR 6 1990 CC: District Attorney ATTESTED Sheriff-Coroner PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Probation Officer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Health Services Director Alcohol Program Administrator Acting Municipal Court Administratgx�,DEPUTY M382 (10/88Les Spahnn SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates that the person was driving a motor vehicle with an excessive concentration of alcohol in his or her blood. If the person subsequently enrolls in an alcohol treatment program the department is required to suspend the person' s driving privilege for 30 days and then issue the person a restricted license for driving to and from treatment. In the person has a commercial license and has no separate violations of alcohol-related offenses or suspensions within 7 years, the department is required to suspend the person' s driving privilege and then issue the person a restricted license for driving to and from and in the course of his or her employment. As amended January 24, 1990, SB 1150 would continue to extend the period of suspension to one year on a first violation of refusing a chemical test of the person' s blood, breath or urine and would require the revocation, instead of suspension, for 2 years, instead of one year, for a subsequent violation of such refusal or conviction of driving with'' an excessive blood alcohol content or upon an administrative determination that the person was driving with an excessive blood alcohol content. If there had been two or more convictions within the past 7 years, the revocation would be for three years. SB 1150 also conforms various provisions of law to the . 08o blood alcohol limit which was enacted in 1989. The bill also makes a variety of procedural changes regarding the manner in which such cases are adjudicated. The January 24, 1990 amendments clarify that the administrative finding by the Department of Motor Vehicles that a driver was in physical control of a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of . 080 or more is a civil matter which does not affect any subsequent Criminal prosecution for the same or similar charges. The bill also provides that if an individual is acquitted of criminal charges relating to a determination of facts under this administrative procedure the Department must reinstate the person' s privilege to operate :a motor vehicle if it was suspended administratively, return or reissue the individual' s driver' s license -and is precluded from charging any fee for returning or reissuing the driver' s license. The January 24., 1990 amendments also note that an administrative suspension because the individual refused a chemical test to determine the presence of alcohol in the driver' s blood, breath or urine does not preclude any subsequent criminal prosecution . and does not preclude litigation of those same facts in the criminal proceeding. The amendments also provide that any court review of such an administrative determination shall not preclude subsequent criminal prosecution and does not preclude litigation of those same facts in the criminal proceeding. The January 24 , 1990 amendments also provide that if a person has refused an officer' s request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a chemical blood alcohol test but has entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving under the influence and has subsequently enrolled in an alcohol treatment program, the court must, in addition to any other punishment which is imposed, order DMV to suspend the person' s driving privilege for six months or, for one year in the case of a second conviction within seven years, and then issue the person a restricted license authorizing the operation of a motor vehicle only to and from the treatment program. Since SB 1150 continues to increase the penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs it appears to be consistent with the Board of Supervisors ' war on drugs. It is therefore recommended that the Board 'continue to indicate its support for SB 1150, as amended January 24, 1990.