Bill to Set .08% Legal Alcohol Level Gains

Senate-approved legislation to reduce the blood-alcohol level at which a motorist is considered drunk narrowly cleared a substantial barrier in the Assembly on Tuesday.

Assemblyman John Burton (D-San Francisco), chairman of the Public Safety Committee, who opposed such legislation in the past, cast the critical vote to send the proposal to the full Assembly.

The author, Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear), predicted that the measure will win legislative approval and be sent to Gov. George Deukmejian, whose Administration supports it.

The committee, long dominated by liberals and historically known to critics as the Assembly graveyard for law-and-order legislation, approved the bill on a 5-0 vote, the exact favorable margin required on the eight-member panel.

Same Standard

Since 1969 in California, a driver whose blood-alcohol level measures 0.10% has been presumed to be legally drunk. Leonard’s bill would lower the level to 0.08%, the same standard imposed by at least three other states.

Leonard, who carried a similar bill several years ago that failed in the same committee, asserted Tuesday that his measure would send a strong signal that “if you are going to drink, make other plans about driving.”

He said that while a driver now is presumed to be legally drunk at 0.10%, a motorist’s judgment and driving skills are impaired at 0.08%, a contention disputed by some opponents of the bill.

“I want everyone to know that they are impaired, even at very low blood alcohol levels,” Leonard said.

But Burton and Assemblyman Charles W. Quackenbush (R-Saratoga), who also voted for the bill, asked how a drinking person could determine when he or she had reached 0.08% or even 0.10%.

Leonard conceded that there is no universal standard that fits everyone but that a 0.08% level would make “people more aware before they begin to drink and (motivate) them in advance to have someone else drive.”

Representatives of opponents of the bill, the California Public Defenders Assn. and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, argued that existing law is adequate.

Among other things, they noted that it is possible for a prosecutor to get a drunk driving conviction at 0.08% or less and that studies of the issue produced conflicting results over how impaired the judgment was of various drivers who tested at 0.08%.

After the committee action, Leonard cited Burton for heading a “real turnaround on that committee for my bill.”

As a relatively new assemblyman in 1966, Burton voted against the “implied consent” law, under which a driver’s license can be suspended or revoked for failure to submit to a blood alcohol test. Three years later, he voted against the bill that set the 0.10% level for intoxication.

In 1974, Burton was elected to Congress but did not seek reelection in 1982 because of a problem with alcohol and drugs. He since has fought his way back to sobriety and was returned to the Assembly last year.

“I think that driving under the influence is a very serious situation,” Burton said in response to a reporter’s question about his reversal on voting for a drunk driving bill that closely resembled one he voted against in 1969.

He indicated that attitudes about drunk driving, including his own views, have changed drastically over the years.

“There was a time when guys almost bragged about the fact that they had five or six (drunk driving arrests),” he said. “People used to joke about it.”

Asked whether his own experience with substance abuse played a part in his vote on the Leonard bill, Burton replied without elaboration, “Maybe.”