Vehicles: driving under the influence: controlled substances.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 50 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 50.
You're tracking SB 50
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 50 — Vehicles: driving under the influence: controlled substances.
Last action — Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
(1) Existing law makes it a crime for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or any drug, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug, to drive a vehicle. Existing law also makes it a crime for a person to drive a vehicle with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. This bill would, in addition, make it a crime for a person to have a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood while driving a vehicle. (2) Existing law makes it a crime for a person who drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any drug, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug, to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving a vehicle when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. Existing law also makes it a crime for a person who drives a vehicle with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving a vehicle when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. This bill would, in addition, make it a crime for a person to have a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood while driving a vehicle and to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. (3) Under existing law, there is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a person was under the influence of alcohol at the time he or she drove a vehicle if he or she had 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of a chemical test if the chemical test was done within 3 hours after the person drove the vehicle. This bill would create a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a person had a controlled substance in his or her blood at the time he or she drove a vehicle if the person had a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test if the test is done within 3 hours after the person drove the vehicle. (4) Because this bill would create new crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/20/12 - Amended Assembly Current pdf June 20, 2012
- Amended 04/16/12 - Amended Assembly pdf April 16, 2012
- Amended 06/20/11 - Amended Assembly pdf June 20, 2011
- Introduced 12/15/10 - Introduced pdf December 15, 2010
- SB50 View text html
Action History
-
Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (June 11). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E. & R.
-
Referred to Com. on E. & R.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 961.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
-
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.
-
Set for hearing May 2.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 541.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing April 5.
-
Referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 15.
-
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Blakeslee · Cosponsor
- Correa · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Correa
Co-sponsors (1)
- Blakeslee
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 33% | 50% | 0% | 17% |
How each member voted (6)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Not Voting |
| Cedillo | — | Nay |
| Mitchell | — | Nay |
| Ammiano | — | Nay |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 73% | 9% | 0% | 18% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Butler | — | Nay |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Yea |
| Silva | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Not Voting |
| Alejo | — | Not Voting |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 35 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 37 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 93% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Not Voting |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Negrete McLeod | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Blakeslee | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Not Voting |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Vargas | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| La Malfa | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 80% | 0% | 0% | 20% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| De León | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Not Voting |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| La Malfa | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 50 do?
- (1) Existing law makes it a crime for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or any drug, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug, to drive a vehicle. Existing law also makes it a crime for a person to drive a vehicle with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. This bill would, in addition, make it a crime for a person to have a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood while driving a vehicle. (2) Existing law makes it a crime for a person who drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any drug, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug, to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving a vehicle when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. Existing law also makes it a crime for a person who drives a vehicle with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving a vehicle when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. This bill would, in addition, make it a crime for a person to have a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood while driving a vehicle and to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law while driving when that act or neglected duty is the proximate cause of bodily injury to any person other than the driver. (3) Under existing law, there is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a person was under the influence of alcohol at the time he or she drove a vehicle if he or she had 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of a chemical test if the chemical test was done within 3 hours after the person drove the vehicle. This bill would create a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a person had a controlled substance in his or her blood at the time he or she drove a vehicle if the person had a controlled substance, as defined, in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test if the test is done within 3 hours after the person drove the vehicle. (4) Because this bill would create new crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors SB 50?
- SB 50 is sponsored by Blakeslee and Correa.
- What is the current status of SB 50?
- This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 50?
- Track SB 50 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 50
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 50
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →