AB 1389 California Assembly · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Vehicles: sobriety checkpoints: impoundment.

Summary
Existing law authorizes a city or a county to establish a sobriety checkpoint program in highways under its jurisdiction to check for violations of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses and authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to establish, by ordinance, a combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint program to check for violations of motor vehicle exhaust standards in addition to DUI offenses. Existing law authorizes a peace officer, whenever the peace officer determines, among other things, that a person was driving a vehicle (1) without ever having been issued a driver's license, to immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of his or her vehicle for an impoundment period of 30 days, or (2) if the person is currently without a valid driver's license, to remove the vehicle for a shorter period of time upon issuance of a notice to appear if the registered owner or the registered owner's agent presents a currently valid driver's license and proof of current vehicle registration, or upon order of the court. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would authorize the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and a city, county, or city and county, by ordinance or resolution, to establish a sobriety checkpoint program on highways within their respective jurisdictions to identify drivers who are in violation of specified DUI offenses. The bill would require that the program be conducted by the local governmental agency or department with the primary responsibility for traffic law enforcement. The bill would require that the selection of the site of the checkpoint and the procedures for a checkpoint operation be determined by supervisory law enforcement personnel and that the law enforcement agency employ a neutral methodology for determining which vehicles to stop at the checkpoint or that all vehicles that drive through the checkpoint be stopped. The bill would also require a law enforcement agency to ensure that there are proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles, and uniformed personnel to minimize the risk to motorists and their passengers and to only operate a checkpoint when traffic volume allows for the safe operation of the program. The bill would delete the county board of supervisors' authority to conduct a combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint program. The bill would require a law enforcement agency that conducts a sobriety checkpoint program to provide advance notice of the checkpoint's general location to the public within a minimum of 48 hours of the checkpoint operation and would require the law enforcement agency to provide to the public advance notice of the checkpoint's specific location 2 hours prior to the checkpoint operation. This bill would require that each motorist stopped be detained so that the law enforcement officer may briefly question the driver as provided. Because this bill would expand the duties of local law enforcement officials and the scope of an existing DUI checkpoint program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Because the failure to comply with these provisions would constitute an infraction under the Vehicle Code, the bill would also impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status vetoed 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Assembly Passage
May 2011
Senate Passage
Sep 2011
Vetoed
Oct 2011
Introduced Feb 18, 2011 Vetoed Oct 9, 2011
Floor votes · Assembly May 27, 2011

How they voted

47–21
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 72
May 27, 2011
D Democratic45
44 Yea 1
97% Yea
I Independent1
1 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican26
2 Yea 21 Nay 3
80% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
27
Key actions
7
Committee
7
Amendments
4
Oct 9, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Sep 8, 2011
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 48. Noes 25. Page 3139.).
lower
Sep 8, 2011
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Aug 15, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jul 11, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 5).
upper
Jun 8, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
May 27, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (47-21-4)
assembly
May 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 18).
lower
May 5, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
lower
May 3, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (May 2).
lower
Apr 4, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
Feb 20, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
0 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

No sponsor information available.