August 11, 2026 · Public Safety · 7,869 words · 8 speakers · 69 segments
Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, August 11, 2026. We do not yet have a quorum, although we're awaiting members to join us. I ask that all members please come to room 2200 in 1021 O Street so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. We have two items on this morning's agenda. File item 1, AB 1830 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris.
And file item 2, AB 2796 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
And that is not a consent item anymore?
Oh, no, it is.
And that is a consent item. So when we establish a quorum, we need to make a motion on the one consent item. And before we take up item one, just to summarize our public comment process, each author has designated two principal witnesses to testify in support of their bill, and they'll each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill, after which time we'll invite any other members of the public who wish to express support for the bill. And your testimony is limited to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We will not take any other extemporaneous testimony, after which time we'll invite two principal opposition witnesses. Those opposition witnesses must have recorded their opposition by submitting written testimony in the portal prior to today's hearing. And then we'll invite members of the public to express opposition. Once again, you're limited to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We thank you for joining us today. And with that, we'll proceed to file item 1, AB 1830. And if there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table here.
And good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm honored to join you this morning to present Assembly Bill 1830, a measure that will help prevent drunk driving tragedies before the car even starts. Drunk driving is an epidemic across America. Every day, drunk drivers kill 37 Americans. And sadly, California is the epicenter of this crisis. With eight of the ten deadliest cities for DUIs right here in the state of California, these are preventable deaths. And as I said, the measure before us will help to save lives with every start. What's in front of you today is the product of months of technical negotiations with the DMV and the administration to build a program that works at statewide scale. For nearly two decades, colleagues in the legislature have attempted to pass some version of this bill, including three years of effort that I have been doing alongside many of my colleagues. I do believe that with your help and with the shared commitment of our committees and the legislature that we'll be able to get this bill to the governor's desk and make California's roads safer. I am going to go into a fair bit of detail about the bill just because I think there's been quite a lot of conversation and some confusion about what the measure before us does. So the bill before us replaces a limited repeatedly extended pilot program with one permanent statewide IID ignition interlock device program This consolidates years of overlapping and sometimes conflicting statute into a single coherent framework As it was passed out of this committee last year, the measure requires an ignition interlock device for every alcohol-involved DUI conviction, including first-time offenders. This aligns California policies with 35 other states that already require IIDs for all convicted drunk drivers. The bill expands and better targets California's financial assistance program so that cost is not a barrier to compliance. The bill establishes a separate framework for drug-only DUI offenses, recognizing that IIDs can only detect alcohol, right now not drugs. The bill creates a clear pathway for alcohol-related DUI offenders to remain mobile for all professional and personal responsibilities. The bill decouples the running of the IID term from completion of other reinstatement requirements, creating an important distinction between finishing the IID clock and eligibility for full reinstatement, and expressly recognizes an individual's IID time served. The good news is that we know that ignition interlock devices work. The 35 other states in the country that have enacted requirements for ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders have seen alcohol-related fatalities and injuries decline. At the same time that California has seen their death rates and injury rates climb at a precipitous rate. But in California alone in 2023, IID stopped more than 30,000 attempts to start a car by someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher. 30,000 documented moments where this technology kept a drunk driver off of our roads. Just think of the tragedies that these technologies have already prevented. The CDC finds that IIDs reduce repeat DUI offenses by some 70%, and California DMV found that IIDs are 74% more effective than license suspension alone at reducing recidivism amongst first-time offenders. Two issues have come up consistently in stakeholder conversations, so I want to address both of those directly in these opening comments. The first is manufacturer compliance. We have heard and take very seriously concerns that not every certified IID manufacturer has consistently complied with existing income verification and reduced fee requirements. We recognize that it's imperative that Californians can access financial assistance and be able to access a complaint process should a provider falls short. Second is related to reporting and data collection. As introduced, this bill included reporting requirements of the DMV, language that was carefully negotiated and which we certainly stand by. With that, as I said, I believe that the bill before us will take an important step to make California roads safer and to save lives in every community across our state. I really honored to be joined today by my co and champion for California Families Senator Archuleta who would like to with your permission Mr Chair make a few comments before we welcome our primary witness Thank you Mr Chair and members
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you as a colleague, as a private citizen, as a grandfather who lost his daughter and members of my family that to this day cannot even think about even going forward to the next Christmas because it was Christmas Eve when my Samantha was killed by a drunk driver and after they've drove two three times we're still trying to ascertain that but we know that publicity and and asking for people not to drink and drive and impaired we can do that forever. But we have a system. We have an opportunity to actually put something in the automobile that will maybe save another life, the ignition interlock devices. That's why I'm supporting the Assembly Bill 1830. And I will continue to support every bill, every issue, everything that we can possibly do to stop these drunk drivers, repeat offenders. We've got to. and we've got to give our judges the opportunity to place them in rehabilitation if we have to give them some opportunities to change their ways i get that but if the interlock device is there maybe their own families won't have to suffer because when a drunk driver kills one oftentimes they kill themselves so we're trying to save lives so i come before you with the support that I give and the support that so many across this nation. As you know, 30 states have already agreed that this is the way to go. California should also be right there with them. And I think that all of us can look back at each holiday we've had with our families, but imagine getting a phone call that says there was an accident. And then it took time to identify my granddaughter, and they only could do it with a fingerprint. You can imagine. I just can't begin to tell you the pain. But I will tell you this, that I'm proud of every senator, every assembly member who's willing to stand up and mad and everyone who can stand up and say, we're going to do something about it. We are doing something about it. And this is a big step. And I know that the drunk drivers, even themselves will realize that thank you. Thank you for having that because it is a way to be proactive. And if we can save one life, we've done our job. But in this case, we'll be saving thousands upon thousands. So the debate goes back and forth, but I think it's time for us to take on this bipartisan issue head on and say that we're not going to allow drunk drivers anymore. We are going to give people the opportunity to change their ways, give people the opportunity to, when they turn on that ignition, it's because they can drive safely. They are ready to hit the road, not damage their families, anyone else. So it's so important that we understand that across California, we've got to support every law enforcement, every district attorney, everyone I talk to, Highway Patrol, across this nation. Everyone is in support of some method some way to deviate from this tragedy that happens every holiday And we just had the proms Young kids were killed We just had a tragedy You pick up the paper every single day. Someone is killed by a drunk driver. So let's stop it. Let's go ahead and do something about it. And that's why I sent a bill. 1830 is so vital, so important. And I thank you, Mr. Chair, if they're allowing me to jump in.
Thank you very much, Senator. Okay, before we go to our witness, we do have a quorum, so if the committee assistant can please call the roll. Senators Argin?
Present. Sayardo?
Here. Sayardo here.
Caballero? Present.
Caballero present. Cortese?
Here. Cortese here.
Perez, Wiener. Okay, thank you, and good morning. Thank you for joining us, and you may begin your presentation.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Colin Campbell. I'm a national board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And on June 12, 2019, I was driving my family to Joshua Tree for a summer vacation. My 17-year-old daughter, Ruby, had just gotten a merit scholarship to study at the Art Institute of Chicago. And my son, Hart, 14 years old, handsome, hilarious Hart, was going to spend the whole summer dating girls and playing video games. And a drunk driver going 90 miles an hour hit us at full speed, didn't touch the brakes. I was knocked unconscious. When I came to, I looked in the back seat. I saw Rubien Hart's eyes were wide open, their pupils were pitch black, their necks were snapped, and they were both dead. The woman who killed my children was multiple DUIs. There was a warrant out for her arrest for violation of probation of a previous DUI. Nothing was going to stop her from drinking and driving that night except a bill like AB 1830. Why wasn't there an interlock device in her car? It was because a judge used their discretion. I've been to prison and I've talked with this woman. Her name is Nicole Packer. I spent four and a half hours talking with her. She's a mother with three young children. She struggled with drug and alcohol addiction her entire life. She would give anything, anything in the world, to have an IED device in her car to prevent her from driving that night. Her life was destroyed as well. So instead of being a mother, now she's a murderer and she's in prison and her family's destroyed and my family's destroyed. Every year, hundreds of California families are destroyed like mine and Nicole's, and I want you all to stop it, please. So please pass this bill. Thank you so much for your support. Thank you so very much.
Okay, well, invite any other members of the public who wish to express support for AB 1830. So please come forward, and please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Support. Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support. Chair and members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association also in support. Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support. Good morning. Justin Vanzal on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition in support. Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support. and Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California in support.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1830? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now invite two principal opposition witnesses.
Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, private practice also working in public defender offices. We are respectfully in opposition. First let me say I have the utmost respect for the author for taking on this issue and for the work on this and also respect for the witness that just testified about his family's tragedy. Our opposition takes nothing away from how much we respect and understand this is a very difficult issue. And there are a lot of tragedies that all of us have faced in our families or with our friends, including myself. That being said, the policymaking process also requires us to not only consider that, but to look at what will be perhaps the most effective policy. And in the interest of time, let me just say three things. One is California, Florida, and Texas are the states with the most number of drivers, and so getting the policy correct is critically important. We're concerned that the way the bill is drafted and having mandatory on every DUI is going to reach individuals that statistically are not likely to reoffend. In California, 96% of first-time DUI offenders do not reoffend within the first year. That number has been consistent for years. And one of the reasons why we have posed a statewide mandate on first-time offenses, current law allows a judge to impose an IID on a first-time offense based on the circumstance of that specific case. We believe that is a better policy. If there's going to, and I should also mention that, between 75% and 85% of DUI fatalities in California are by first-time offenders. So this bill would not address those cases. We have a number of suggested amendments. In the interest of time, I'll just go through them very quickly, but I hope we have a robust discussion, happy to answer any questions. Number one, we would be open to a mandate on first-time offenders with a high BAC and a prior moving violation in the past two to three years. Statistics show those are the folks that are most likely to re-offend. Number two, we would want more robust enforcement of the sliding fee scale for installers, and the penalties need to be increased. Number three, we would like to see a study to understand why 50% of DUI arrests in California consistently are Latino drivers. There's some disproportionate enforcement going on. There are a number of other things that we'd be open to to help prevent first-time offenses, but we think the better approach is to have high BAC, which is actually the law in Florida. Texas does not have a mandatory IID on first-time offenses, so we think we would match Florida and actually have a better policy. So I'll just stop there, and thank you for your time. Good morning, everyone. I'm Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez here on behalf of the Local 148 Union at the LA County Public Defender's Office, and we respectfully oppose this bill. It seems that this bill is being pushed under the principle of public safety, while not allowing for this IID device to be provided for free. If it's a public safety issue, why not make it free? And, you know, I understand that there's a part in the bill that says that it's going to make it more affordable, But there are people with no jobs people that can even afford a car who are going to be suffering under this rule And not because they bad people that want to rebel against it but because they cannot afford the condition And that means that the issue is going to be the fact that they are poor. Under the Constitution of California, legislators must take notice that even though a law may appear neutral, they still need to consider the fact that it may disproportionately impact marginalized people, here being poor people. And even though poor people are not necessarily a protected class, they tend to be disproportionately represented by black and brown people. And so under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. And even though this applies to fundamental rights, that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to privileges. So the laws that impact the privileges of people still need to be accounted for, and it is protected under the Equal Protection Clause. This bill takes away discretion from judges. Judges look at facts of a case, and they balance the facts, and with the facts, they decide what the punishment should be. What this bill does is that the judge is going to look at people, not have that kind of power, and impose a condition that is going to be impossible for those that are extremely poor to the point where they can't afford this condition, making them vulnerable to probation violations, making them vulnerable to incarceration, not because they don't want to abide to the law, but because they cannot afford to do so, disproportionately impacting the liberty, the freedom of the marginalized, marginalizing the marginalized even further. So another thing that I believe this bill will do is that punishment will continue even after they max out. Going against the principle of punishment, that when someone serves their entire punishment, they should be free from further punishment. This bill continues that punishment. And so for those reasons, I do believe that you should think very critically about who is going to be disproportionately impacted if this bill passes. And yeah, thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1830?
Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed unless amended. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, opposed unless amended.
Thank you.
Harvey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and strong opposition.
Okay, thank you very much. unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition. I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments from members of the committee who would like to begin the discussion. Senator Caballero?
I have to run and take a phone call real quick, so I want to get this out. Let me just say that I'm going to start off by saying that despite the fact that I did criminal defense work for many, many years. I am very sympathetic to what you're trying to do here. And my good friend, Senator Archuleta, I was there when he got the news about his granddaughter. And my heart hurts for the Archuleta family. And quite frankly, the Christmases will never be the same. There's just no question about it. And I resent people taking clips out of hearings and taking them out of context and using them for political means So I'm hesitant to make any comments because that's exactly what was done the last time that there was a bill that I had some issues with. So having said that, getting it off my chest, I understand what you're trying to do here. But I also understand the economic consequences of not being able to comply with a program that is very expensive. It's one of the pieces of the sentencing process that costs – well, everything costs money. The fine costs money if you're sentenced to jail, it costs you money if you have to take classes. And that's not to say people shouldn't have to learn and have consequences. It's a question of can we make it so that people who don't have the resources don't get caught up in this cycle where you're perceived as being unwilling to do the program, you're perceived to be unwilling to pay for it, you're perceived. If there's a malfunction, you obviously were messing around with the machine, whatever the excuses are. So number one is I want to make sure that people don't go to jail if they can't do, if they can't afford to pay the IID. And like you, I was calling it something different that, so I apologize if I use the other acronym. And that, and then I'm not really sure. well, so the judicial discretion for the first time I think should be there. But that's not the biggest concern. The biggest concern I have is over the payment. And really the state should pay for it if we think it's going to be that effective. And the reason we don't is because then that's budget bait and you won't get out of a probe. So I understand that completely. But I think we need the company has to tell Well, we have to manage what companies are eligible in California. And then they need to advise people that are installing the device that there's a program if they don't have the resources that can help them pay for it. and if there's a violation, either missed a payment, missed the calibration doesn't work, or missed a calibration, or somehow they fall off the program, that there's no fine or jail time. I just think that that's going to be really important if we want to keep the system honest about really being available for everybody, everybody included, those of limited means. And in regards to the rolling checks, they've got to be manageable. I think it's a good safety measure to be able to blow at the beginning, and if you're cleared, you can drive. And then as you're driving, to be able to, if there's a way to check, to make sure you're still the same driver to check, that has to be safe. And I don't know enough about that to feel comfortable with it, but I think it maybe you pull over or you have to do something in order to be able to do it Let me just say that I think the IIDs can be a tool in the toolbox but I want it to be fair I'm going to support your bill today. I know that you are considering the potential for amendments if it goes to a prox and gets out. There's no guarantee I'll support it on the floor, however. So I just want to be clear. Those are my biggest concerns with the status of the bill right now.
Thank you, Senator, for those comments.
Let me respond to a couple of the issues that you raised and things that were echoing some of the concerns of the opposition witnesses. So let me start with the concern about cost and ensuring that this program is implemented fairly. Um, so, uh, California's ignition interlock, uh, device program, we have the most generous financial assistance in the nation. Um, this will strengthen that assistance. If you are, um, with the most generous subsidy amounting to a cost of 30 cents per day, 30 cents per day. Uh, and that is, uh, for, you know, I'm happy to send you the fee schedule. but I think that we have an incredibly generous program and I think I would also put forward for your consideration for the consideration of the committee and frankly for the consideration of the opposition witnesses that it's actually important for people to have some skin in the game and I think I shared this story in one of the committee hearings So many of us have experience with drunk driving incidents tragically, and mine is related to my brother. So my brother has struggled with substance abuse and alcohol addiction. He was convicted of a DUI. Long story, he actually spent time in prison for other offenses. About three years ago, he was released from prison, and for the very first time in his life, He was in a position where he was sober, he was working to get his life on track, and he was going to try to get a driver's license. Now, my brother lives in North Carolina. Guess what? North Carolina doesn't have these generous subsidy programs like the state of California. My brother is a fast food minimum wage worker in the state of North Carolina. He had to save his money to have enough money to install the device, to afford these payments. And you know what? I don't think that was a bad thing for my brother. I think it made him understand that it's a privilege to get behind the wheel of a fast-moving vehicle that can kill other people. And so I could have said to my brother, you know what? Gosh, you're poor. You don't have any money. Let me give you the money you need. I didn't do that because I think it was important for him to understand that. So for my brother, that has been part of his journey. And he has continued to stay sober. He has continued to be able to drive. He has continued to be able to support himself. So I'm proud of the progress that he's made. But I'm also grateful. I'm also grateful that he wasn't able to get behind the wheel of a car without ensuring that he was safe to drive. Because as you heard from Mr. Campbell, when these tragedies happen, they destroy the lives. of people like Mr. Campbell, they also destroy the life of the person who has made that horrible decision to get behind the wheel. And so I believe that these are preventable tragedies. I believe that we can save lives with this approach. The second point I'll address is the point that you made about the manufacturers. And I think as I noted in my opening comments, We certainly take very seriously concerns that not every certified IID manufacturer has consistently complied with existing income verification and reduced fee requirements. For all the reasons that you stated, that is a real problem. It undercuts the affordability protections that the program depends on. And we will continue to work with this committee and with the administration to ensure that we get that piece right and that we strengthen the oversight and enforcement of manufacturers and installers. And it's important that anyone under this program can access a system where they can file complaints. That was one of the reasons we worked really closely with the DMV to improve the implementation of the program overall. And I guess the last point I'll address, because you raised it as an opposition, is the point regarding judicial discretion. So that is current law. and right now whether a first-time drunk driver has to install an IID depends almost entirely on the county that they get arrested in. So that's not, in my view, a public safety policy. That's a lottery. So 11 counties, including Los Angeles, never, have never ordered a first-time offender to install one at all, and Sonoma County has ordered it to be installed in 72% of conviction. So to your point about fairness, what we're doing right now really seems to fly in the face of fairness for all Californians. And I would say, you know, the last thing that I think is just so important for us to center in this conversation is that the policy before us, the requirement to install an ignition interlock device. The reason that I want to advance this is because it is a way for people to continue to get to work and have a job. It's a way for people to continue to have a driver's license and stay mobile. So I think that this approach ensures that we aren't keeping anyone, anyone from earning a living and being able to get on with their lives. And as I said, with the incredibly generous subsidy, I believe that it is absolutely a fair and equitable approach. Thank you for that.
I appreciate it. As I stated at the beginning, I don't have – I think it's – this is really important work to do. It's the devil's in the details. And part of the challenge is that we all have vignettes that we can talk about. And I really appreciate you sharing your family story because I do agree that people need to have skin in the game. There's just no question about it. And they have to feel the consequences of their bad behavior. And what I like about the bill is that it does provide an opportunity for people to be able to get to work in regions where public transportation just does not exist. And in my rural region, it's pretty impossible to find a job that isn't 30 minutes away, which means you got to get on the road and you got to drive somewhere And more often than not more often than not my clients because I represented farmworkers drove without licenses or drove on suspended licenses because that's how they get to work and that's how they pay their bills. And so we want to make sure that that isn't happening. So whatever it is that we're putting in the vehicles has to work and has to work for them as well. And so I expressed to you my concerns. I think this is a really good bill. It's just got some tweaks that I think may make it better. And I just don't want to set up a system where people are just driving a suspended license because the ID is too difficult to implement. So thank you for that.
Thank you so much, Senator.
I really appreciate your engagement on this.
Thank you. Senator Cortese.
Yeah, I'll be first of all, let me thank the author for approaching me a couple times and particularly as chair of the next committee that this bill is going to and we've had discussions and an offer of a one sentence amendment, one sentence to cover judicial discretion in extraordinary circumstances extraordinary circumstances are well defined in case law that was not responded to favorably so I'll be staying off today and whether or not the bill makes it to the floor or not, makes it through my committee. I can't vote. I can certainly vote for a bill, as I told the author, that makes this the default in every county in California, in the state of California. But I won't vote for a bill that tells the judges in this state and in every county that there's never an extraordinary circumstance that they're going to face in sentencing that shouldn't be treated differently in terms of an IID. That's, I think, extremely inappropriate. I appreciate the witness testimony. I certainly appreciate my seatmate, Senator Archuleta, for having the continued courage to talk about his situation. We all have, you know, as I associate my comments generally overall, just in the interest of efficiency here with Senator Caballero. And, you know, there are significant victim experiences in my family as well, including my mother. but as a matter of judicial principle I would not take discretion away from every judge in California because of my personal situation that's not how I vote here as a state senator I appreciate the victim testimony about repeat offenders we've held hearings on that I think we generally all agreed that that's an area that needs to be stepped up especially in terms of DMV revocations those folks shouldn't be not only should not be driving should not be allowed to drive in almost almost all circumstances but that's not the bill before us today the bill before us today is saying every single first-time offender no matter what the circumstances no matter what the fact pattern essentially has no hope of that piece of the defense and it is a piece of the defense that would allow them to argue on sentencing that in their particular circumstance, fact pattern or situation, that an IID should be considered off the table due to those extraordinary circumstances. So that's where I'm at, and we've all had an opportunity to view the bill in print overall, but I would say a lot of the things that we've heard just with two senators speaking already would have been opportune to negotiate and discuss at much greater detail than we've had an opportunity to do. I certainly, as this committee, have not had an opportunity to weigh in on public safety amendments that might make the bill a better bill. And we are all, as authors, in a position to accept from our colleagues, especially those with professional experience, like my colleague who spoke before me, to make a bill better. I mean, that's what we do here. And I haven't seen those kind of suggestions accepted at this point or worked with. So I'll be staying off.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Serta?
And I guess I would sort of say two things. So first, I think to the question of this, and I appreciate your forthrightness, both in our private conversations as well as here before committee. I think to the point about judicial discretion, I think perhaps you and Mr. Chair and I should have a conversation about that. I think the central conundrum is I think there's a desire to ensure that this is implemented fairly and equitably across the state. And as I said, we want to make sure that it doesn't depend on which courthouse you walk into or whether you can afford to hire a fancy defense attorney or any of the other factors that other members of this committee are concerned about in terms of what judicial discretion might introduce. So open to that conversation. I was surprised to hear you say that you don't feel like you've had the time to consider the bill. I know that the bill has been before your committee since June, and I have been eager and open to discuss and dive into it with you at any point since that time. If I may, through the chair, what I suggested is that I have not had time as a member of this committee or an opportunity or an invitation to help negotiate amendments to the bill here, and I'm staying off here. That's where the bill is being heard right now. I've certainly had an opportunity to review what amounts to about a ream of paperwork that you have provided and advocates have provided, your sponsors have provided, and I appreciate that. But judicial discretion is a term of art, and it has nothing to do with one county applying rules different than another county. That's a different issue than what we're talking about, what I'm talking about here. And, you know, I think there's just a sharp difference of opinion as to whether that's necessary or not. And I sorry that we have a difference of opinion on that but it where I stand on this issue and I think it's actually a generous amendment that preserves the very principles of checks and balances in our system and what the judicial branch is there to do and what our public defenders and other defense attorneys are there to do, while at the same time making your bill the default in every case, unless there's an actual finding of extraordinary circumstances in the judicial branch. So if we can't get there in agreement, obviously you get to proceed with your bill as long as you continue to have the votes. And I understand that's how it works here. Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Look forward to continued conversation, Senator. Vice Chair Certa.
Thank you very much. So, you know, I'm going to apologize in advance. I'm not as sympathetic with people that get themselves into the situation of going out and drinking and killing somebody. I've probably seen more dead bodies from drunk driving than anybody in this room put together. And it's something that doesn't go away. You know, somebody, this notion that somehow, you know, somebody can't afford the $54 to rent this thing for the six months that they need to rent it for. They spend more than that on the alcohol that they buy. They can stop buying alcohol. They can stop drinking. That's their choice. nobody has the privilege of driving while illegally intoxicated. There is no privilege for that. There's no law that says you get to do that. That's your freedom. Drunk driving is a scourge. And nothing we have done seems to be making the impact that we need to make. when you get caught drunk driving, blowing into a tube to make it okay for your vehicle to start is the least of our worries. The most of our worries is that they don't. Some judge decides, ah, this one deserves a pass. We're going to let this one pass. I've seen way too many of those, way too many of them. They're called repeat offenders. They go out there time and time again. And they got out there because the first time they offended, they got a slap on the wrist. The first time they went down the freeway at 100 miles an hour, three times the legal limit, they didn't kill anybody. so they get a slap on the wrist they get a fine well sometimes that fine is $10,000 and if somebody can pay a $10,000 fine then some of that money can be used for this device I haven't always been a fan of these type of interventions but watching our failures for so many years in trying to stop the part that this gentleman here has to live with for the rest of his life. I don't know what the hell else to do. It's absurd.
We make excuses. We make excuses. These people go out there and keep doing it. Even your first time. So, I applaud you on your effort to try and get this, you know, there's a lot of things we can get hung up on. A lot of our bills get killed. People get hung up on our bills. Little technicalities here and there. But the big effort that you're trying to do is to stop that. Stop that from happening. You would do a lot of first responders a favor by not letting that happen. so for all you folks that think that you're going to fix this by slapping somebody on the hand by making excuses for well you know it's it's it's you know it affects them or they won't be able to go to work bs get a bus pass get a ride get a bike get electric bike you don't have to pedal. But for Pete's sake, we've got to hold people accountable for their crappy behavior. Making excuses for them is not going to help them. It's not going to keep them from doing what they're doing like this. So anyway, I'll be supporting your bill. Whatever form it comes out of, I hope we can resolve all these concerns. But the sterile environment of a courtroom does not compare with seeing that over and over and over. So thank you. Senator.
Well, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments and I do have a do pass recommendations bill, but I appreciate the authors willingness to strengthen language in the bill on making sure that installers are complying with the affordability provisions that there notice to people about the opportunity to be eligible for subsidized partially subsidized because it's a sliding scale on the basis of your level of income at the poverty level, installation, and then also holding the installers accountable to make sure that they're complying with the law as well. I think that's a really critical piece to make sure this law works. I do want to just call attention to one issue, and I think it's a technical issue that Smart Justice did raise in their letter, which is I think this may have been changed through the DMV amendments. But there is a change to the definition of driving of the bill. It uses a phrase physical control. And the current law says that you have to be driving or operating the vehicle. I'm concerned that if you are in a car, the car isn't on, and you're just sitting there, that that could be constituted as physical control. I don't think that's the intent. And so I understand your office has expressed a willingness to talk to the DMV and get clarification on this point. I just want to make sure that we get that clarified because I think the intent is if you're driving, operating the vehicle, that's when it's an offense. But if somebody's just sitting behind a vehicle and it's not on or sleeping in a vehicle, does that mean they have physical control? I don't think that's the intent. So I just want to raise the description. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you for that question. And I think you've clarified and summarized the issue very well. And, you know, certainly, yes, what you described is consistent with our intent that, yes, you are driving the vehicle. Yes. Full stop. Yeah, I mean, if somebody is intoxicated, we don't want them driving the vehicle. Right. Yes, if they're supposed to try to start it, it doesn't work. If you decide to sleep it off, that's a good outcome. Yes. 100%. Okay, great.
Okay, we have had discussion to see if there are any other questions or comments. And just say that, you know, this is one of several bills that is moving through the legislature, including a bill by our colleague, Senator Archuleta. I think builds on one reporting by CalMatters this year that talked about the real lack of accountability by DMV over people that are engaging in reckless driving and driving under the influence I think builds on some of the conversations we started earlier this year with the joint hearing that we had with the Senate Transportation Committee on the issue of impaired driving and so there are many different bills that are trying to tackle this issue in a variety of ways including repeat offenders which is a very very serious issue but this is really trying to get ahead of the issue to make sure that once the first offense happens that one we are creating a disincentive for people to continue to drive impaired so that people don't become repeat offenders and have the tragic consequences including what you and your family have had to endure and to also make sure that if somebody is driving, that they're not driving impaired and we can make sure that they're safe driving on our roads. So I thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I'll turn it back over to you to make a closing statement.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to just thank you and your committee staff for your engagement on this bill, as well as the DMV and the administration. And I really want to thank Colin and the other MAD advocates who have been here throughout this legislative session to advocate for this bill, advocate for Senator Archuleta's bill, and for other bills that are a part of this package to make California roads safer. And I'll say, and I apologize in advance if I get emotional. So my son Dylan is 19, and he and his friends just went on a road trip. And I'll say as I lay in bed the first night he left, I found myself thinking of Colin and of Ruby and Hart and of your road trip and praying, praying. for my son. And so I just want to say thank you so much for being here because you aren't here to save those, the lives of those beautiful kids. You're here to save the lives of my kids and your kids and all of our kids. So I am really, really grateful for everything that you and MAD are doing to advance policies to make California roads safer and to save lives all across the state And I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you very much Assemblymember I turn a motion on the bill
Moved by Senator Wiener. Okay, the motion is due pass to the Committee on Transportation. Please call the roll. AB 1830, the motion is due pass to Transportation. Senators Aragine?
Aye.
Aragine, aye.
Cerro? Aye.
Cerro, aye.
Caballero?
Aye.
Caballero, aye.
Cortese?
Perez
Wiener Aye
Wiener, aye We'll keep that bell and call for absent members And thank you very much Assemblyman, thank you very much Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members We have the consent calendar Which is filed in 2-AB-2796 I'm going to get a motion
Moved by Senator Wiener
Thank you If we can please call the roll
Perez Wiener Aye
Wiener, aye No, consent Oh Yeah, we have to start from the top Oh, I'm sorry Okay Senate has filed him to AB 2797. Okay.
Senators Arguin. Aye.
Serriardo. Aye.
Caballero. Aye.
Cortese. Aye.
Perez. Wiener. Aye.
Got it. Okay, we'll keep that on call for absent, Senators, and thank you, colleagues. We will recess the committee. I believe Senator Perez will be coming to cast your votes. Thank you. We convened the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing, and we had bill presentations, and so we will start first with a vote on the consent calendar, which consists of file item 2, AB 2796 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, if we can call the roll.
Perez? Aye. Perez, aye.
Consent is approved on a vote of 6-0, and then we'll now take a filing on 1 AB 1830 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Transportation. AB 1830, the motion is due passed to Transportation.
Senators Aragine voting aye.
Seardo voting aye.
Perez? Aye.
Perez, aye. Okay, that bill is out on a vote of 5-0. With that, that is our agenda. This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.