See Bill Text
A05488 Summary:
BILL NO A05488SAME AS Same as S 403SPONSOR MillerCOSPNSR Scozzafava, Hawley, Finch, Crouch, Barclay, GuntherMLTSPNSR Alfano, Bacalles, Ball, Barra, Burling, Butler, Conte, Duprey, Errigo Kolb, McDonald, McKevitt, Molinaro, Oaks, O`Mara, Raia, Reilich, Tedisco, Townsend, WalkerAmd SS1809, 1803 & 1197, V & T L; amd S60.35, Pen LProvides for distribution of the mandatory surcharge collected in DWI offensesto be paid to counties where a stop DWI program is operating, in lieu of to thestate.
A05488 Actions:
BILL NO A0548802/15/2007 referred to transportation01/09/2008 referred to transportation
A05488 Votes:
A05488 Memo:
BILL NUMBER: A5488 REVISED 10/19/07 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law and thepenal law, in relation to the distribution of the mandatory surchargefor certain alcohol-related convictions PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : To provide that mandatorysurcharges imposed and collected upon conviction for alcohol-relatedoffenses be deposited to the credit of the county STOP-DWI Programwhere the alcohol-related conviction occurred. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS : Amends sections 1197, 1803 and 1809of the Vehicle & Traffic Law and section 60.35 of the Penal Law toprovide that mandatory surcharges imposed and collected uponconviction for alcohol-related offenses be deposited to the credit ofthe county STOP-DWI Program where the alcohol-related convictionoccurred. EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER : Presently, allof the money collected from the mandatory surcharge is deposited tothe credit of the Criminal Justice Improvement Account. JUSTIFICATION : The STOP-DWI Program was enacted by the StateLegislature in 1981 for the purposes of empowering and coordinatinglocal efforts to reduce alcohol and other drug-related crashes. TheSTOP-DWI legislation (VTL S1197) permits each of the State`s 57counties and the City of New York to establish a STOP-DWI programwhich, in turn, qualifies the county/NYC for the return of all finescollected for alcohol and other drug related traffic offensesoccurring within its jurisdiction. Collectively the State`s 58programs comprise a comprehensive and financially self-sustainingstatewide alcohol and highway safety program - one that serves as amodel of excellence for the rest of the nation. In fact, Congress hasawarded federal incentive funding to states that have adopted programsmodeled on STOP-DWI. Since the enactment of the STOP-DWI Program inNovember of 1981, the likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver inNew York has been reduced by more than 63%.The overwhelming success of the STOP-DWI Program is subject to asignificant institutional fragility. Since the Program is financiallydependent exclusively on fines levied for alcohol-related convictions,successful deterrence measures can have the effect of reducing fundinglevels. In other words, reductions in the incidence of drunk anddrugged driving begets reductions in convictions which begetsreductions in funding. Funding reductions result in cutbacks inprograms. In order to ensure that funding remains at appropriatelevels, the individual programs have focused on making certain thatthe fines that have been imposed are collected.Among the components that have made the STOP-DWI Program such asuccess was the level at which the mandatory minimum fines wereestablished in 1981. In 1979, the average fine for an alcohol-relatedoffense was $11. When the Legislature enacted the STOP-DWI Program,it established minimum fine levels of $250 for a DWAI and $350 for DWI--levels that were commensurate with the seriousness of the offense,yet were not so high as to impair "collectibility." A rational finescheme has remained a crucial part of the Program, and, as such, havebeen subject to an across-the-board increase only in 1992.Nevertheless, the efficacy of the Program has become threatened by anancillary penalty: the "mandatory surcharge" that has been imposed onPenal Law and Vehicle and Traffic Offenses since 1983. In that year, ashortfall in the Crime Victims Compensation Fund begat the firstmandatory surcharge. In its first iteration, all convictions under theVehicle and Traffic Law were surcharged $10. That amount was increasedto $17 in 1988 and $25 in 1989. Subsequently, misdemeanors andfelonies were pegged to the same level as those in the Penal Law ($85and $150 respectively) while traffic infractions, such speeding ordriving while impaired remained at the current level of $25. Thismoney is deposited to the credit of the Criminal Justice ImprovementAccount, to offset general State expenditures in the administration ofvarious State criminal justice agencies.Over the years the increases have had an unintended consequence: theyhave impaired the collectibility of the fines imposed for alcohol andother drug- related traffic offenses. With each increase in themandatory surcharge there is a marked tendency by the courts to cutback the amount of the fine set for the underlying charge. Moreover,due to the nature of the language imposing the surcharge, collectionof the full amount of the surcharge is a court imperative, usually atthe expense of the underlying fine.In the FY 2000-2001 budget, the Governor proposed and the Legislatureenacted a 34% increase in the surcharge (as well as a doubling of thevictims fee). As a result, the combined surcharge for a trafficinfraction will be $40; $120 for a misdemeanor; and $210 for a felony.This will surely have the unintended consequence of further depressingthe collection of fines under the STOP-DWI law.Accordingly, this legislation proposes that the surcharges imposed forall alcohol related convictions under the Vehicle and Traffic Law (andvehicular assault and manslaughter under the Penal Law) be returned tothe county of conviction for the STOP DWI Program pursuant to S1197 ofthe Vehicle and Traffic Law. This is consistent with the underlyingintent of the STOP-DWI statute and will have the dual effect ofinsulating the local Programs from the effects of "surcharge creep"and will restore a pervasive revenue loss that is inherent to thesuccess of the Program and its commitment to maintain fines at acollectible" amount. PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :2007: Referred to Transportation FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS : Based on a 70percent collection rate, this bill would generate $2.45 million forthe STOP-DWI Programs. EFFECTIVE DATE : This Act shall take effect on April 1, 2009.
|
