California Assembly Bill AB71

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/11/24
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Report Pass: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/6/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Sections 13352, 13352.1, 13352.4, 13353.3, 13353.4, 13353.5, 13353.6, 13353.75, 13386, 13390, 23103.5, 23247, 23573, 23575, 23575.3, 23576, and 23597 of of, and to add and repeal Section 23575.6 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

Summary

AB 71 would extend California’s statewide ignition interlock device (IID) framework for DUI-related offenses from its current sunset date of January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2033. The bill keeps in place the post-2019 rules that require or authorize IID installation for many drivers convicted of driving under the influence, including repeat offenders and, in some cases, first offenders, and preserves the related restricted-license pathways that allow eligible drivers to continue driving under monitored conditions while completing DUI treatment and IID requirements. It also maintains the rules governing IID use, monitoring, maintenance, certification of devices, and penalties for tampering, bypassing, or failing to comply with IID restrictions. The bill also updates the reporting requirements tied to the IID program. It would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide updated data to the Transportation Agency on the program’s implementation and effectiveness, and require the Transportation Agency to report revised findings to the Legislature by July 1, 2031. Those reporting provisions would later be repealed on July 1, 2035. In addition, the bill makes conforming changes across multiple Vehicle Code sections so that the IID program, restricted-license rules, and related enforcement provisions continue to operate under the extended timeline rather than reverting to pre-2019 law in 2026. AB 71 would affect drivers convicted of DUI and related offenses, commercial drivers in certain circumstances, IID manufacturers and installers, the DMV, courts, and local law enforcement through the continued enforcement of IID-related offenses. It also preserves the existing state-mandated local program designation because extending criminal penalties and enforcement provisions can create local implementation costs. The bill explicitly states that no reimbursement is required for those costs under the California Constitution. The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is favorable. The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 9-0 vote and was reported out as “do pass as amended and be re-referred,” indicating broad committee support and no recorded opposition in the available vote history. No committee transcript is available, so there is no detailed public discussion in the provided record, but the unanimous vote suggests the measure was viewed as a continuation of an existing public-safety program rather than a major policy shift. The main point of contention, based on the bill’s structure rather than recorded debate, is the policy choice to continue and expand a mandatory IID regime that imposes compliance costs and monitoring obligations on convicted drivers and device vendors. The bill also extends criminal enforcement provisions and keeps in place restrictions that can affect driving privileges, employment-related driving, and commercial license holders. Supporters are likely to emphasize DUI recidivism reduction and roadway safety, while any critics would likely focus on administrative burden, costs to offenders, and the continued use of criminal penalties tied to IID compliance.

Impact

AB 71 would extend and preserve the current IID-based DUI sanction system in the Vehicle Code, preventing the law from reverting to its pre-2019 form in 2026. It keeps in force the court and DMV authority to require ignition interlock devices, issue restricted licenses, impose compliance monitoring, and penalize tampering or noncompliance through January 1, 2033, while also updating reporting obligations and conforming related sections governing DUI suspensions, revocations, and IID certification. The bill affects DUI offenders, repeat offenders, commercial drivers in limited circumstances, IID manufacturers/installers, the DMV, courts, and local agencies that enforce these provisions.

Sentiment

The available legislative history shows strong support for AB 71. The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee unanimously, 9-0, and was advanced without any recorded dissent in the provided vote history. With no committee transcript available, there is no detailed debate to characterize, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was broadly viewed as a routine extension of an existing traffic-safety program rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the continued use of mandatory ignition interlock devices, the associated costs and administrative burdens on convicted drivers and device providers, and the extension of criminal penalties tied to IID compliance. The bill also preserves restrictions that can limit driving for work and other purposes, which may concern drivers who rely on vehicles for employment, including some commercial drivers. On the other hand, supporters would likely argue that the program reduces DUI recidivism and improves public safety, and the unanimous committee vote suggests those concerns did not generate visible opposition in the available record.