Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 218

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

penalty surcharges, court fees, drivers' records, and drug and alcohol assessment for persons who commit certain offenses relating to driving while intoxicated.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Under current law, a person who is subject to a forfeiture or a fine for violating

most state laws or local ordinances is also liable for a variety of penalty surcharges

and court fees. In addition, a person who commits an offense relating to driving while

intoxicated is liable for a penalty surcharge for driver improvement programs and

is required to comply with an alcohol and other drug assessment before he or she is

eligible for reinstatement of his or her driving privileges.

Currently, a person who commits his or her first offense related to driving while

intoxicated and who has a blood alcohol concentration between 0.08 and 0.099 at the

time of the offense is not liable for the surcharges or fees and does not need to comply

with an alcohol or other drug assessment program. Further, the Department of

Transportation (DOT) must purge its records of a first offense related to driving

while intoxicated after ten years; the department keeps all other records of offenses

related to driving while intoxicated permanently.

Under this bill, a person who commits his or her first offense related to driving

while intoxicated and who has a blood alcohol concentration between 0.08 and 0.099

at the time of the violation is liable for the surcharges or fees and must comply with

an alcohol or other drug assessment program before his or her driving privileges may

be reinstated. Under this bill, DOT must keep a record of this offense permanently.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Berceau (D) , Bies (R) , Honadel (R) , Mason (D) , Montgomery (R) , Pasch (D) , Pope-Roberts (D) , Richards (D) , Smith (D) , Staskunas (D) , Townsend (R)

4 cosponsors

Darling (R) , Lehman (D) , Olsen (R) , Plale (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report passage recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0

Passed 8–0 May 21, 2009 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Apr 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Staskunas, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Townsend, Berceau, Montgomery, A. Ott, Richards, Smith, Mason, Honadel and Bies;Cosponsored by Senators Plale, Lehman, Darling and Olsen

  2. Apr 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Public Safety

  3. Apr 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  7. May 6, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. May 13, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. May 19, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  10. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  11. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  12. Jun 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  13. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1