California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 R cosponsors

AB 702 — Driving under the influence: chemical tests.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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) When a person is convicted of violating specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI) provisions, and at the time of the arrest leading to that conviction the person willfully refused a peace officer's request to submit to, or willfully failed to complete, a specified chemical test, existing law requires a court to impose additional penalties, as specified. This bill would make it a crime for a person to willfully refuse to submit to, or willfully fail to complete, a breath test after being lawfully arrested for a violation of specified offenses. The bill would specify that this crime does not apply to a person who has submitted to and completed a blood test, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) When a person is convicted of violating specified DUI provisions, existing law requires a court to consider a concentration of alcohol in a person's blood of 0.15% or more, by weight, or the refusal of the person to take a chemical test as a special factor that may justify enhancing the penalties in sentencing, in determining whether to grant probation, and, if probation is granted, in determining additional or enhanced terms and conditions of probation. This bill would change the provision described above to no longer require a court to consider a person's refusal to take a chemical test as a special factor. (3) Existing law provides that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Existing law requires a person to be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical test will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if convicted of specified DUI offenses, and suspension or revocation of his or her driving privilege, as specified. Existing law exempts a person afflicted with hemophilia or a heart condition, as specified, from this blood test requirement and instead requires him or her to submit to, and complete, a urine test. This bill would repeal the presumption that a person consents to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath and would instead require a motor vehicle driver who is lawfully arrested for a specified DUI offense to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood. The bill would require a peace officer to advise the person that he or she is entitled to a number of constitutional protections as to the manner in which the testing will occur, but that failure to take a blood or urine test may result in suspension or revocation of his or her driving privilege, and refusal to take a breath test may result in the same penalty and a fine or mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a specified DUI offense. The bill would require a person exempted from the blood test requirement because of hemophilia or a heart condition, as specified, to submit to, and complete, a breath test or a urine test, as specified. Because this bill would impose new requirements on peace officers, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations about the privilege of driving on public streets and highways in California and reasonable conditions imposed on that privilege. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 27).

  5. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1825.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 26).

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  14. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  15. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Bates · Cosponsor
  • Chávez · Cosponsor
  • Cunningham · Cosponsor
  • Tom Lackey · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (3)

  • Bates
  • Chávez
  • Cunningham

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 702 LACKEY Assembly Third Reading

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 55002
Democratic 16000
Republican 6001
Total 77003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
O'Donnell — Yea
Acosta — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Harper — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Burke — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Salas — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Friedman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Not Voting
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 11000
Republican 1000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Brough — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 702 do?
(1) When a person is convicted of violating specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI) provisions, and at the time of the arrest leading to that conviction the person willfully refused a peace officer's request to submit to, or willfully failed to complete, a specified chemical test, existing law requires a court to impose additional penalties, as specified. This bill would make it a crime for a person to willfully refuse to submit to, or willfully fail to complete, a breath test after being lawfully arrested for a violation of specified offenses. The bill would specify that this crime does not apply to a person who has submitted to and completed a blood test, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) When a person is convicted of violating specified DUI provisions, existing law requires a court to consider a concentration of alcohol in a person's blood of 0.15% or more, by weight, or the refusal of the person to take a chemical test as a special factor that may justify enhancing the penalties in sentencing, in determining whether to grant probation, and, if probation is granted, in determining additional or enhanced terms and conditions of probation. This bill would change the provision described above to no longer require a court to consider a person's refusal to take a chemical test as a special factor. (3) Existing law provides that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Existing law requires a person to be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical test will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if convicted of specified DUI offenses, and suspension or revocation of his or her driving privilege, as specified. Existing law exempts a person afflicted with hemophilia or a heart condition, as specified, from this blood test requirement and instead requires him or her to submit to, and complete, a urine test. This bill would repeal the presumption that a person consents to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath and would instead require a motor vehicle driver who is lawfully arrested for a specified DUI offense to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood. The bill would require a peace officer to advise the person that he or she is entitled to a number of constitutional protections as to the manner in which the testing will occur, but that failure to take a blood or urine test may result in suspension or revocation of his or her driving privilege, and refusal to take a breath test may result in the same penalty and a fine or mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a specified DUI offense. The bill would require a person exempted from the blood test requirement because of hemophilia or a heart condition, as specified, to submit to, and complete, a breath test or a urine test, as specified. Because this bill would impose new requirements on peace officers, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations about the privilege of driving on public streets and highways in California and reasonable conditions imposed on that privilege. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 702?
AB 702 is sponsored by Bates, Chávez, Cunningham, and Lackey, Tom (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 702?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 AB 702?
Track AB 702 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 702

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 702

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →