An act to add Section 22651.08 to the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
AB 875 adds Section 22651.08 to the Vehicle Code to give peace officers express authority to remove certain unsafe or unlawful small electric vehicles from the roadway. The bill applies to two categories: non-bicycle vehicles with fewer than four wheels that are powered by an electric motor capable of propelling them over 20 miles per hour on a highway when operated by an unlicensed driver, and class 3 electric bicycles operated by a person under 16 years of age. In effect, the bill creates a targeted vehicle-removal remedy for high-speed micromobility devices that are being used outside the legal age or licensing rules.
The bill also allows cities, counties, and cities and counties to recover their actual administrative costs for removal, seizure, and storage through a locally adopted fee schedule, which must be publicly posted online. A seized vehicle generally must be released after at least 48 hours once the required costs are paid and the request is made during normal business hours. For class 3 e-bike violations, an agency may also require proof that the violator completed an electric bicycle safety and training program, or a related local bicycle safety course, as a condition of release.
AB 875’s impact on state law is to expand the Vehicle Code’s impound/removal authority beyond conventional motor vehicles and into the growing area of electric bicycles and similar small electric vehicles. It adds a new statutory basis for peace officers to remove these vehicles, while also setting procedural rules for local cost recovery, posting of fees, minimum holding periods, and possible safety-training conditions tied to release. The bill primarily affects riders of nonstandard electric vehicles, minors riding class 3 e-bikes, local law enforcement agencies, and local governments that choose to impose administrative charges.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The voting history shows unanimous or near-unanimous support at each stage, and the bill was repeatedly placed on consent calendars, indicating broad agreement that it addresses a public-safety and enforcement gap. There is no recorded committee transcript in the provided materials, so the available record does not show sustained opposition or debate.
Any likely points of contention would center on enforcement discretion, the treatment of minors, and the costs imposed on owners to recover seized vehicles. The bill gives local agencies authority to charge administrative costs and, in some cases, to require proof of safety training before release, which could raise concerns about affordability or consistency across jurisdictions. However, the absence of recorded opposition and the unanimous votes suggest these issues did not generate significant legislative conflict.
AB 875 amends the Vehicle Code by adding Section 22651.08, expanding peace officer authority to remove certain noncompliant small electric vehicles and class 3 electric bicycles. It authorizes local governments to recover actual removal, seizure, and storage costs, requires public posting of those charges, sets a minimum 48-hour release period subject to payment and request timing, and permits a safety-training proof requirement for certain class 3 e-bike violations. The bill primarily affects law enforcement, local agencies, riders of high-speed micromobility devices, and minors operating class 3 electric bicycles.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed each recorded vote unanimously or by consent calendar, suggesting legislators viewed it as a straightforward public-safety and enforcement measure rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant dissent.
The main potential points of contention are the scope of police removal authority, the financial burden of towing and storage fees, and the added compliance requirements for riders—especially minors—who may need to complete safety training before reclaiming a vehicle. Local governments may also differ on whether to adopt the optional fee-recovery ordinance and how aggressively to enforce the new rules. Even so, the unanimous votes and consent-calendar treatment indicate these concerns did not translate into major legislative opposition.