NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A4755B
SPONSOR: Lupardo TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to paying drug-
impaired driving surcharges to counties to reduce drug-impaired driving
incidences
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill establishes a schedule to transfer the revenue from two manda-
tory surcharges for alcohol and other drug-related traffic offenses to
the STOP-DWI Program established in Section 1197 of the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1: Amends paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 1197 of the
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Section 2: Amends subdivision 9 of section 1803 of the Vehicle and Traf-
fic Law.
Section 3: Amends subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 1809-c of the Vehicle
and Traffic Law.
Section 4: Amends paragraph b of subdivision 1 and subdivision 2 of
section 1809-e of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Section 5: States that the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, who oversees
the STOP-DWI program, shall annually certify to the division of the
budget that all county STOP-DWI programs eligible for funding are in
full compliance with their statutory and regulatory authority relating
the program and the provisions of this chapter.
Section 6: Establishes the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
In 1981, New York moved to the national forefront of the movement to
address the epidemic of impaired and intoxicated driving when it enacted
the STOP-DWI Program (Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1197)
(the"Program"). The Program contained two parts: first it established
manda- tory minimum fines for all levels of DWI; and second, it allowed
counties (and NYC) to keep the fine money assessed within its borders
provided it established a dedicated office and program to fund activ-
ities ranging from enforcement to rehabilitation with the sole priority
of reducing the incidence of alcohol and other drug-related traffic
fatalities. By 1983 every county had established a program, tailoring
strategies around the unique challenges presented within its borders.
Within 10 years after the program was established, the likelihood of
being involved in a drunk driving crash was reduced by almost 70%.
In 2003, a new $25 surcharge was imposed exclusively on convicted drunk
and drugged drivers exclusively for short-term budget relief, the
proceeds accruing to the General Fund. In 2008 an additional budget
relief surcharge of $170 was imposed upon convicted drunk and drugged
drivers. These surcharges were imposed on top of the underlying fine the
special surcharge for the Criminal Justice Improvement Account (DCJS)
(1), the Crime Victims Fee, a $750 Special Assessment from DMV, and the
cost of installing an Ignition interlock device, if applicable.
The unintended consequences of these two, short-term budget fixes
include their impact on the STOP-DWI Program.
Where courts used to impose fines based on a balance of aggravating and
factors related to the offense, now they regularly impose the statutory
minimums (or less) because the combined financial penalty is so great.
Indeed, many judges now are imposing only the surcharges (which are
devoid of any public policy rationale) because they believe they have
discretion regarding the fine but are required to impose the surcharges.
The result has been predictable: the county programs have seen a sequen-
tial reduction in the level of fines imposed. Thereby curtailing their
only source of revenue. This, in turn, undercuts the initiatives and
strategies associated with their mission. Moreover, because the underly-
ing fines are (pursuant to the CPL) the last in priority of collection,
they are rarely fully collected. Town and Village Courts lack the
resources to enforce collection of the myriad financial obligations, and
County Courts, which deal with the more serious offenders, set up
payment plans through the County Clerk - a totally separate branch of
government with no power to compel collection.
As a result of both the reduced fine imposition and limited fine
collection, revenue for the Program has receded to such an extent that
the very backbone of the State's most important tool against drunk driv-
ing is endanger of collapsing, county by county. Indeed, revenue for the
statewide Program has declined by 21% between 2009-2019. That is a $7M
reduction from the Program's pre-surcharge revenue years. The pandemic
resulted in another $7M loss across all 58 county programs.
While repeal of these surcharges would.make sense from a public policy
viewpoint, new challenges related to the opioid crisis, the influx of
designer drugs, and the decriminalization, and the legalization of adult
use cannabis, are facing the county programs throughout the State. There
is little doubt that drugged driving has the potential to reach crisis
proportion in the coming years. Data from other states has been fairly
indicative of what New York will be facing. The infrastructure to deal
with it is in place. But it has to be preserved and enhanced. This
legislation accomplishes the dual task of shoring up the fiscal integri-
ty of the STOP-DWI Program while providing an important funding stream
to address the myriad issues related to the increase in impaired driv-
ing.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Formerly A9985 of 2022, died in the Transportation Committee.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Based on 2021 conviction data, the fiscal implication would be $4.4M.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the first day of April 2024.
