AB 1022 enumerates and clarifies the circumstances in which a peace officer or authorized traffic employee may remove a vehicle from a highway, public land, or certain offstreet facilities. The text preserves standard removal grounds (obstruction, hazard, stolen vehicle, blocking driveways or hydrants, long-term freeway/right‑of‑way stops, and local ordinance-based removals) and layers in procedural rules about verification, notice, release conditions, and liens.
The bill adds explicit authority to impound vehicles operating using autonomous technology without a required permit, sets specific documentation and release pathways (including a sworn declaration to DMV for autonomous vehicles), and strengthens impound agencies’ ability to lien surplus from sales and pursue deficiency claims. It also conditions some impounds on access to DMV records and requires warning notices for repeated parking citations — changes with operational and fairness implications for law enforcement, tow operators, DMV systems, vehicle owners, and AV permit holders.
At a Glance
What It Does
Specifies dozens of removal grounds for vehicles and establishes documentation and release rules, including proof of identity, in‑state address, current registration, and payment or adjudication of parking penalties; creates an impound route for autonomous vehicles lacking required permits and allows impounding agencies to place liens on sale surpluses and file deficiency claims.
Who It Affects
Peace officers and municipal/county parking enforcement employees gain clarified authority; tow companies and storage facilities handle more impounds and liens; the Department of Motor Vehicles must provide record access for some enforcement; registered owners, legal owners (repossession holders), and autonomous vehicle manufacturers/operators face new compliance and release obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill ties operational enforcement to DMV data access and to permit regimes for autonomous vehicles, shifting practical burdens to agencies and vehicle owners while expanding tools for clearing public hazards. That creates enforcement clarity but also raises new implementation, equity, and compliance questions for regulators, the AV industry, and individuals subject to impoundment.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, AB 1022 is a catalog of when a vehicle may be removed and what paperwork or steps are required for its return. The statute keeps the familiar list—vehicles that obstruct bridges, tunnels, highways, block driveways or hydrants, are stolen or embezzled, are left on freeways or roadside rest areas too long, or violate local removal ordinances—and clarifies how those situations should be handled in practice.
It also enshrines requirements that the impounding agency verify registration status before certain removals, and that notice and warnings accompany repeated parking citations that could lead to impoundment.
The bill adds a discrete enforcement pathway for autonomous vehicles: a vehicle operating using autonomous technology may be impounded if it lacks a required permit under existing Section 38750 and related Title 13 regulations, or if its permit has been suspended or revoked. The statute limits enforcement mechanics in two ways: if the vehicle is occupied, only a peace officer may remove it, and an officer may not stop an autonomous vehicle solely to determine whether it has a permit.
Release conditions for impounds vary by ground for removal but generally require proof of identity, in‑state address, current registration, and in some cases clearing outstanding parking penalties or securing a magistrate/hearing examiner appearance.The bill also creates procedural and financial pathways tied to vehicle sales and repossession. If an impounded vehicle is released to a legal owner (for example, a lienholder) as a repossessed vehicle, the impounding agency may claim a lien on any surplus proceeds from sale to secure unpaid parking penalties and local administrative charges and may pursue a deficiency claim against the registered owner for remaining penalties.
For removals based on registration expiration, officers must verify DMV records and cannot remove a vehicle if current registration exists; where immediate access to records is unavailable, removal is prohibited. Finally, the statute supplies alternative notice regimes for certain advertising-vehicle ordinances, and specific hour thresholds for roadside rest area removals, giving local authorities several administrable tools to clear hazards and enforce parking rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes impoundment of autonomous vehicles operating without a valid Section 38750 permit or after that permit has been suspended or revoked, and allows release only after proof of registration and permit or a sworn declaration to DMV that the vehicle won’t be operated autonomously until permitted.
Before removing for a registration-expiration ground (registration expired more than six months), an officer must verify DMV records show no current registration; without immediate access to those records, the vehicle may not be removed.
A vehicle may be impounded for repeated unpaid parking notices when at least five notices are on record, and the registered owner may be required to clear all parking penalties and traffic violations (or demand prompt magistrate/hearing review) before release; this provision is tied to DMV data access timelines.
If an impounded vehicle is released to a legal owner because it was repossessed, the impounding agency gets a lien on any sale surplus to secure unpaid parking penalties and can file a deficiency claim against the registered owner for remaining amounts.
When a vehicle removed under certain subparagraphs is occupied, only a peace officer may remove it; separately, officers may not stop an autonomous vehicle solely to check for a permit required to operate using autonomous technology.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Classic obstruction, hazard, and freeway‑stop removal grounds
These paragraphs restate routine public‑safety and traffic‑flow grounds: unattended vehicles blocking bridges or tunnels; parked vehicles obstructing normal traffic movements or creating hazards; stolen or embezzled vehicles with supporting reports or warrants; vehicles blocking private driveways or hydrants where moving them locally is impracticable; and disabled vehicles on controlled‑access freeways left more than four hours. For practitioners, these are operational triggers that permit immediate removal to restore traffic flow or protect safety, and they remain subject to local practice about towing vendors, signage, and on‑scene discretion.
Impound for repeated unpaid parking/traffic notices and release mechanics
This lengthy provision lets agencies impound vehicles when five or more notices of parking violations (or five or more failures to pay/appear for traffic violations) are associated with the registered owner and remain unresolved. It imposes pre‑release conditions: the person must furnish identity, an in‑state address, and satisfactory evidence that all parking penalties and related traffic violations for that owner have been cleared. The statute contemplates alternative due‑process (demanding immediate magistrate or hearing examiner review) and phases enforcement to the point when DMV can provide the necessary records, which delays full enforcement until electronic access is available.
Registration and counterfeit/forgery grounds; autonomous vehicle permit ground
Paragraph (o)(1) creates three separate removal bases: (A) vehicles with registration expired more than six months (but only after DMV verification); (B)/(C) vehicles displaying registration or plates that were not issued for that vehicle or are forged; and (D) vehicles operating using autonomous technology without a required permit or after permit suspension/revocation. The clause clarifies release pathways: for (A)-(C), release requires proof of current registration and a valid driver’s license; for (D), the registrant must show registration and either the valid autonomous‑vehicle permit or a sworn declaration to DMV that the vehicle will not be operated autonomously without a permit. The subdivision also limits who may remove an occupied vehicle and prohibits stopping an AV solely to determine permit status, which constrains enforcement tactics against AV operators.
Special local‑ordinance, signage, offstreet facility, and no‑plate removals
These sections govern local removal programs: vehicles without plates may be impounded until identity and a state address are shown; local ordinances forbidding parking require posted signs (with some exceptions), and local authorities can authorize removals for cleaning, construction, or special uses if 24‑hour signage is posted. Subdivision (m) addresses highway uses where parking would interfere with authorized non‑traffic activities. Practically, these provisions preserve municipal control over targeted removal programs but also require that municipalities follow notice and posting rules or rely on warning citations in narrowly defined advertising‑vehicle situations.
Time thresholds, advertising vehicles, roadside rest areas, and common‑interest developments
The statute sets time thresholds for prolonged parking in rest areas (8 hours generally, 10 hours for commercial motor vehicles), authorizes removal after 72 hours under local ordinances, and provides a tailored mechanism for mobile billboard or parking‑sign ordinance violations where a warning citation may substitute for posted signage before removal. It also allows removal on roads within common interest developments after signs provide notice. These mechanics give local governments operational levers to manage specific problem uses while preserving notice‑and‑warning steps before escalation to towing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local law enforcement agencies — gain clearer statutory authority and discrete grounds (including for mispermitted autonomous vehicles) to remove hazards and enforce parking programs, and receive support for lien and deficiency recovery mechanisms after vehicle sales.
- Tow companies and storage operators — obtain additional tow opportunities and statutory backing for fees and storage charges, plus clearer entitlement to liens on sale surpluses and deficiency claims against registered owners in some repossession scenarios.
- Department of Motor Vehicles — benefits from a statutory role as the verification hub (registration checks and records access), which centralizes enforcement data and supports consistent decisionmaking.
- Fire and emergency services — benefit indirectly because the statute prioritizes removal of vehicles that impede hydrants, driveways, or access needed for emergency response.
- Legal owners/lienholders (repossession entities) — can retrieve repossessed vehicles without paying parking fines (except towing/storage) and rely on statutory recognition of their repossession rights when vehicles are impounded.
Who Bears the Cost
- Registered owners with unpaid parking citations or unresolved traffic cases — face higher risk of impound, lien on sale surplus, and deficiency claims; they must produce ID, in‑state address, and clear penalties before release.
- Autonomous vehicle manufacturers/operators and registered owners — must ensure timely permitting and be prepared for impoundment when operations occur without required permits or during permit suspensions; they also face operational constraints because officers cannot stop AVs solely to check permits.
- Local agencies and parking enforcement programs — must obtain timely DMV access to enforce certain removal grounds and will shoulder administrative burdens of notices, hearings, and managing liens and deficiency claims if sales occur.
- Small municipalities and hearing examiners — could face increased demand for expedited magistrate or hearing examiner proceedings when individuals demand in‑county review instead of paying to release a vehicle.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: enabling rapid removal of traffic hazards, enforcing parking and registration compliance, and holding owners/operators (including AV firms) accountable — versus protecting vehicle owners from disproportionate financial and procedural burdens where enforcement depends on real‑time DMV data, effective notice, and available due‑process review. Implementing stronger removal powers without commensurate, uniformly available administrative supports and safeguards risks uneven enforcement and outsized hardship for some owners.
AB 1022 tightens enforcement tools but relies heavily on data and interagency coordination that the bill assumes will be available. The provision that impoundment tied to repeat parking notices will be ‘‘fully enforced’’ only after the DMV provides access to necessary records creates a two‑speed regime: jurisdictions with immediate DMV access can enforce earlier, while others must delay.
That raises administrative complexity and could create unequal enforcement across counties.
The autonomous‑vehicle removal path solves a clear regulatory gap — vehicles operating without permits — but raises practical and safety questions. The statute forbids stopping an AV solely to determine permit status and limits removal of occupied AVs to peace officers, which complicates roadside responses when an AV is disabled or poses a traffic hazard.
Requiring either proof of a permit or a sworn declaration to DMV as a release condition may be workable on paper but depends on DMV processes for receiving and acting on such declarations and on how agencies verify their authenticity.
Finally, the lien and deficiency provisions create a hard financial backstop for local agencies but introduce tension between legal owners (who may recover a repossessed vehicle without paying parking penalties) and registered owners (who remain liable for deficiencies). That split can amplify disputes and collection litigation post‑sale, and it shifts some enforcement costs onto low‑income drivers who are more likely to have unpaid tickets and less ability to meet immediate release conditions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.