An act to amend Section 23536 of the Vehicle Code, 25659 of the Business and Professions Code, and to add Sections 13353.9 and 23572.5 to the Vehicle Code, relating to driving under the influence.
Summary
AB 1867 would create a new post-conviction consequence for certain repeat DUI offenders in California. Specifically, if a person is convicted of a qualifying DUI-related offense and the offense occurred within 10 years of two prior qualifying convictions, and the person is sentenced to state prison, the court would be required to prohibit that person from purchasing alcoholic beverages for life. The bill also directs the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an identification card or driver’s license bearing a designation such as “REPEAT SERIOUS DUI OFFENDER” for covered individuals, and allows alcohol retailers to refuse sales to anyone presenting that marked identification.
The bill also makes a technical, nonsubstantive change to Vehicle Code provisions governing first-offense DUI sentencing. In addition, it includes a reimbursement clause for any state-mandated local costs identified by the Commission on State Mandates, reflecting that courts and county staff could face added administrative duties in processing the new designation and related records.
Impact
AB 1867 would amend the Vehicle Code and Business and Professions Code to add a lifetime alcohol-purchase prohibition for a narrow class of repeat DUI offenders, and it would expand DMV and court recordkeeping duties tied to that sanction. It would also explicitly authorize alcohol licensees to refuse sales to individuals whose driver’s license or identification card carries the new DUI-offender designation. The bill could create a state-mandated local program if county court staff must perform additional work, with reimbursement available under existing mandate procedures if the Commission on State Mandates so determines.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was introduced as a public-safety measure aimed at repeat impaired-driving offenders, with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the materials provided. The bill was set for first hearing, but the hearing was canceled at the request of the author, so there is no evidence in the record here of formal support or opposition from committee members. Overall, the measure appears to have been presented in a punitive, deterrence-oriented posture rather than as a broad policy overhaul.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s lifetime prohibition on purchasing alcoholic beverages and the use of a visible designation on a driver’s license or identification card. Supporters would likely view these provisions as a targeted tool to deter repeat DUI behavior and help retailers identify prohibited purchasers, while critics may raise concerns about stigma, privacy, proportionality, and the administrative burden on DMV and courts. The bill also implicates local government costs, since court staff would need to process the new sentencing-related designation and record transmission requirements.