Total Ban on Alcohol for the Under-21 Driver Urged : Safety: Students and politicians boost the bill. Law enforcement leaders and civil libertarians cite grounds for opposition.

A group of high school students, politicians and civic groups announced support Wednesday for state legislation that would bar those under the age of 21 from driving after drinking any alcohol.

But law enforcement officials and civil libertarians said they opposed the proposal, saying it is unnecessary and would create pointless work for police.

Sponsored by state Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), the bill would call for a one-year driver’s license suspension and a $100 fine.

Under current law, anyone under the age of 18 is allowed to have up to a 0.05% blood alcohol level. All others are considered legally drunk if their blood alcohol levels are 0.08% or greater.

“Our message is, ‘You booze, you lose,’ ” said Candy Soto, a student at Paramount High School, during a news conference at a Pacoima wrecking yard littered with cars totaled in accidents.

“A one-year license suspension is nothing compared to risking even one life,” added Becky Arras, another Paramount High student.

The students were joined by representatives of Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), Farmers Insurance Group and civic organizations, including Friday Night Live, a statewide group that plans sober and drug-free activities for young people.

Janice Marschner, administrative assistant to Kopp, said that last year in California, 228 people were killed by drunk drivers under the age of 21 and that 5,462 people were injured. Those figures represent a 28% decrease in deaths and 37% drop in injuries from 1990.

“We have to get serious about preventing teen-age drunk-driving deaths and accidents,” Katz said. “The move for zero tolerance has been successful in other states at reducing teen-age death.”

But critics of the measure have lined up to oppose the bill, including law enforcement officials, the American Civil Liberties Union and state Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys).

“The purpose of having blood alcohol levels is to protect the public from persons who are driving while impaired,” said Margaret Pena, legislative director for the ACLU of California. “Changing the law for those under 21 to a zero tolerance level would include people who are not impaired.”

Pena said there has been no indication that the existing levels are insufficient. Changing them “would probably end up introducing a lot of people under the age of 21 into the criminal justice system when they really have no business being there.”

Under the proposed legislation, Marschner said, the violation would be considered an infraction. The license suspensions and fines would be handled by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Al Cooper, a representative of the California State Sheriff’s Assn., said requiring officers to handle the additional Breathalyzer tests and paperwork would prevent them from responding to other crimes.

“We certainly don’t believe in kids drinking and driving, but we’re concerned with whether this is the best use of available law enforcement,” Cooper said.

“The existing law already deals with those who are impaired and endangering others,” Cooper said. “What we would be doing is . . . taking away driver’s licenses of people when they had been drinking but have not been impaired.”

Roberti spokesman Greg deGiere said the senator opposes the bill because of concerns voiced by law enforcement authorities.

Linda Redd, co-chair of public policy for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said her organization is also staying neutral on the issue for the same reason.

“We’re saying we support zero tolerance, but it would have to be something that law enforcement can work with,” Redd said.

The proposed legislation is part of a national trend toward cracking down on teen-age drunk drivers, said Paul Snodgrass, alcohol coordinator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which favors the legislation.

As of last year, five states--Arizona, North Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin and Oregon--already have zero tolerance laws, Snodgrass said. Other states such as Maine, Maryland, Ohio and Vermont have laws setting illegal blood alcohol levels for minors at 0.02%, which allow for small amounts of alcohol consumed for medical or religious reasons.

Rhode Island and New Hampshire have set blood alcohol levels at 0.04%, followed by California and New Mexico at 0.05% and Georgia at 0.06%, Snodgrass said.

Snodgrass said drunk-driving deaths among minors decreased by 11% in Maine in 1989, a year after the state adopted a 0.02% blood alcohol level.

Should California legislators approve the zero tolerance measure, Snodgrass said, the state would become eligible for $600,000 in federal funds to spend on drunk-driving programs. The funds would be awarded on an annual basis during a five-year period.

The measure is awaiting consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Capt. Mike Brown, a legislative liaison for the California Highway Patrol, said a proposed amendment would give law enforcement officers more discretion in determining whether a youth has violated the law.