Revoke State of California ex post facto Bill 1694

To whom it may concern:

In the State of California a person convicted with a DUI prior to 2005 had to carry a 7-year record of that DUI, which at the time was considered partial punishment for the crime.  According to the United States Constitution, a retroactive increase in said punishment years after a conviction is considered ex post facto law.

The California DMV Mandatory Actions Unit will tell you that the 3 year retroactive increase in driving record punishment associated with Tom Torlakson's bill 1694 was not ex post facto...and they couldn't be further from the truth.  Ex post facto has the following definition, according to the Unabridged Random House Dictionary:

ex post fac-to: 

1.  From or by subsequent action; subsequently; retrospectively; retroactively.
2.  Having retroactive force; made or done subsequently:  an ex post facto law.

California's legislators have broken a law set forth by the United States Constitution.  Creating legislation that goes against our Constitution represents both a "betrayal of trust" and a "violation of allegiance to one's state", and those are two of the three definitions associated with treason. 

To the point...in 2004 Tom Torlakson introduced bill 1694 to the senate.  Bill 1694 added three years to the previous seven year DUI, DMV record punishment, retroactively.  This bill became law in 2004 and went into effect in January of 2005.  In April of 2005, Tom Torlakson was given the "Community Making A Difference Award" by well known extreme lobbyist MADD. 

The argument in support of bill 1694, stated that drunk driving fatalities had increased for four years in a row, with 344 more people dying on the road in 2002 than in 1998 and 180,000 people being arrested for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol that same year (2002), including 25% who were repeat offenders.  

Please refer to the latest DMV DUI Fact Sheet covering 1997 - 2007, available at the California DMV website - http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/duistats89_99.htm. 

First of all, in 2002 there were 177,056 DUI arrests (not 180,000) making it second best year with relation to the least DUI arrests during the 1997 to 2007 period. Second, 417 more people died from drunk driving fatalities in 2007 than in 1998, a 17.5% increase over the number Tom Torlakson used to drive this legislation. These stats combined with the following, will show not only that bill 1694 is illegal according to the United States Constitution, but also a complete failure, as bill 1694 has done nothing to protect constituents from drunk drivers.

Statistics show that both felony and non-felony DUI arrests although fluctuating, actually declined 5.5% during the eight years leading up to Torlakson's bill, from 191,164 in 1997 to 180,957 in 2004 after which both types of arrests spiked drastically, upwards of 10%.  Also interesting, during the same time period 1997 to 2004, repeat offender suspensions declined 17% from 39,636 to 32,903...yet between 2004 and 2007 repeat offender suspensions increased 13%.  What happened in 2004 that drove DUI arrests up so dramatically for the next three years?  Did the State need additional revenue for a looming budget crisis?  Shouldn't corrective legislation do the opposite, by lowering incidents of the specific crime targeted?  If one does the math, a 10% increase in DUI arrests leads to greater than $50m in increased state revenue, for a state that has been struggling severely to manage a budget for years.  The numbers don't lie, politicians do.  My point is the punishment clearly isn't working, and based off of the stats, it's highly doubtful that it was intended to.

From the date Mr. Torlakson's retroactive increase in punishment went into effect, January of 2005, to the year 2007, total DUI arrests grew progressively from 180,288 in 2005 to 203,866 in 2007, or 13%...Felony DUI arrests rose from 5962 in 2005, to 6264 in 2007. Also worth noting, alcohol involved fatalities of which there were 1072 in 1998, grew to 1489 in 2007, or by 28%....yes, 28 PERCENT!

Some might say a population increase in the State of California may have impacted the change in trend with relation to DUI arrests...let's check it out;  Between 1997 and 2004, California's population grew ~ 10% from 32,486,010 in 1997 to 35,629,666 in 2004...during that same time period DUI arrests actually decreased 5.5% according to the DMV's statistics referenced above.  California's population only grew 2% from 35,629,666 to 36,377,534 between 2004 and 2007, yet DUI arrests grew 13% during that same time period.  Looks like that myth is busted. 
 
Now, on to the illegal part of Bill 1694...Our forefathers were concerned about politicians like Tom Torlakson changing punishment years after original sentences, hence Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution.  Article 1 Section 10 in short, and for the purpose of this letter, states that "No State shall pass ANY ex post facto law."

The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST

Please read out loud the following definition of ex post facto law, as described by Justice Chase;  "Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed."  Pretty clear, right?  The following is cited from a prominent California attorney's website regarding the "Ex Post Facto 7 to 10 year extension on prior DUI convictions":

"In California, the law at issue is both retrospective and retroactive. It is retrospective in that it refers in its operation to events, specifically separate DUI offenses, which occurred in the past. It is retroactive, in that it changes the conditions attached to some of those separate convictions by including time barred convictions which have expired prior to the amendments to Vehicle Code %uFFFD23540 et. seq.  At the time of the California DUI Defendant's predicate offense, he or she was assured that that offense would count as a sentence enhancement for no more than seven years. This provision, looked at from the perspective
of this offense, is better termed a sunset clause. At some point in the future, the legislature has promised that the sun will set on that conviction, and Petitioner will be finally free from its shadow. Seven years then elapsed, and that offense, by grace of the legislature, ceased to count as a prior offense for any subsequent offenses. Now, the legislature, by passage of a new statute, seeks to extend the sunset clause that by its own terms has expired. In this way, changing the action of a law which has already by its own terms concluded its effect can not be correctly termed anything but retroactive."

Bill 1694 illegally affected millions of people convicted of driving under the influence between 1996 and 2005, most of which never received any form of notification regarding the changes implemented under bill 1694.  And since the DMV now keeps DUIs on public record for 10 years and private record (for the purpose of enhancing punishment - according to DMV headquarters in Sacramento) for 13 years, I'd say there's roughly 1.7 million voters that would be interested in both this petition, and the revocation of bill 1694.  In America, changes in punishment must happen in the present and apply to future convictions..not the opposite.