Seizure of Drunk-Driving Suspects’ Licenses Approved by Senate

The Senate approved legislation Thursday authorizing a peace officer to immediately seize the driver’s license of a suspected drunk motorist pending a formal hearing.

Without debate, the bill went to the Assembly on a 27-0 vote amid mounting concerns statewide that drastically increased penalties enacted for drunk driving over the past few years have failed to produce the major reductions in deaths and injuries that supporters had expected.

The bill, by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, faces an uncertain future in the Assembly where the Public Safety Committee is considered a stumbling block.

Lockyer told the Senate that the experience of other states with speedy license-revocation laws has demonstrated that fatal accidents involving drunk drivers have been reduced about 10%. Twenty-three states have such laws.

Lockyer, who introduced the bill for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said that in California it often takes as long as 18 months from the time a drunk driver is arrested to when the offender’s license is suspended or revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

He said his measure dealt only with the department’s administrative action against the driver’s license and would not affect separate criminal charges brought against the motorist.

The bill would empower an arresting officer to seize the license of a drunk-driving suspect if the individual flunked a blood-alcohol test or refused to take the examination. Upon release from arrest and booking, the suspect would be issued a 30-day driving permit along with a notice of the license suspension. The driver could appeal to the DMV for return of the license.

If the department rejected the appeal, the driver would be subject to a suspension of the license for six months on the first offense or for one year on a subsequent violation. The driver could appeal the department’s action to the courts.

These administrative actions are apart from the criminal case being made against the driver. The department long has had the authority to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of motorists who fail the examination or refuse to take the blood-alcohol test.

But Lockyer said many arrested drunk drivers now end-run the system and retain their licenses for long periods of time by claiming that they never received a notice of their license suspension from the DMV. He said such claims could not be pressed under his bill because at the same time the driver received the temporary permit, he or she would receive a copy of the suspension notice.

The driver’s license bill constituted part of a torrent of anti-crime and “get tougher” measures approved by the Senate on Thursday, many of which are likely to face problems in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, long known as a graveyard for popular as well as unpopular bills.

At one point, Lockyer told his colleagues that for Senate bills, the committee this session “will be as difficult as it has been in the past.”

Clearly firing a warning shot over the committee, he proposed that if the Assembly committee kills Senate crime bills, the Senate, in turn, amend into Assembly bills the contents of the defeated Senate measures and return them to the lower chamber.

Other proposed bills passed by the Senate and sent to the Assembly included these:

- A bill by Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) to make it a felony, punishable by three to nine years in prison, for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and illegal drugs. The vote was 28-0.

- Legislation by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) reducing from 0.10% to 0.04% the blood-alcohol level at which a commercial driver is considered drunk. The bill, which would become effective July 1, 1990, would conform California law to federal law. The vote was 29-4.

- A measure by Stirling that would increase the penalty for a ward of the California Youth Authority who beats up a guard to an additional two, three or four years. - A bill by Stirling to establish a military “basic training-type” program in the Youth Authority for certain “non-serious” and nonviolent offenders. The vote was 31 to 0.