AB 1168 (the Louis Friend Memorial Act) makes it a crime in California to participate in or facilitate motor vehicle speed contests, exhibitions of speed, and related obstructions on highways and in offstreet parking facilities. The bill defines speed contests, excludes certain long-route timed events, and separately criminalizes aiding, abetting, and placing barricades to enable these events.
The measure pairs criminal penalties (jail time and fines) with non-criminal sanctions aimed at mobility: mandatory community service for first offenders, court-ordered driver’s license suspensions or narrowly tailored restrictions, and the authority to impound a vehicle registered to a convicted person. It also requires courts to notify the DMV and gives judges flexibility to account for employment or hardship when limiting driving privileges.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill outlaws racing, timed speed contests, exhibitions of speed, and obstructing roadways for those events; it criminalizes aiding or placing barricades that facilitate them. It creates a range of punishments—from short county jail terms and fines to mandatory community service, license suspension or restriction, and vehicle impoundment.
Who It Affects
Drivers who participate in street races, spectators who organize or aid those events, vehicle owners whose cars are used in violations, local law enforcement and county prosecutors, and the DMV (which must record and apply license restrictions). Employers may be affected when employees face restricted driving privileges.
Why It Matters
AB 1168 consolidates tools that jurisdictions currently use piecemeal—criminal sanctions, administrative license actions, and impound authority—into a single statutory regime aimed at curbing dangerous street takeovers and stunts. The combination of criminal and mobility penalties raises operational and equity questions for courts, law enforcement, and employers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1168 begins by defining the conduct it targets: a “motor vehicle speed contest” is a race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device, and the statute explicitly excludes measured events that cover more than 20 miles so long as no speed limit is exceeded. The prohibition applies both on public highways and in offstreet parking facilities, the latter term drawing from an existing statutory definition.
The bill separately prohibits exhibitions of speed and any acts that place or assist in placing barricades or obstructions to enable contests or exhibitions.
The bill makes first-time violations criminal, punishable by a minimum 24-hour county jail stay up to 90 days, a fine between $355 and $1,000, and a requirement to perform 40 hours of community service. If the conduct causes bodily injury to a third party, mandatory minimum jail time rises and fines increase; repeat offenses within five years carry higher minimum jail terms and can elevate penalties to state prison if the repeat offense proximately causes serious bodily injury.
Courts may impose suspensions of driving privileges or, instead, tailored restrictions limited to commuting and work-related driving; judges must consider medical, personal, or family hardships before imposing a full suspension.AB 1168 also gives courts authority to impound vehicles registered to convicted individuals for between 1 and 30 days, and to order confinement on non-work days when a county jail sentence is imposed. The bill adds a targeted provision addressing “sideshows” (also called street takeovers): beginning July 1, 2025, the court may suspend or restrict driving privileges for exhibitions of speed only when the violation occurred as part of a sideshow, and the statute provides a clear definition of that term.
Finally, courts must mark any restriction on a license and promptly notify the DMV so the restriction is recorded and carried forward to any subsequently issued license during the restriction period.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a motor vehicle speed contest as racing against another vehicle, a clock, or timing device, but excludes timed events over 20 miles where speed limits are not exceeded.
A first conviction for participating in a speed contest carries 24 hours to 90 days in county jail, a $355–$1,000 fine, and a mandatory 40 hours of community service; courts may also suspend or restrict driving privileges for 90 days to six months.
If the violation proximately causes bodily injury, penalties increase (minimum 30 days jail and $500–$1,000 fine); repeat offenses within five years raise minimum jail terms and may expose an offender to state prison when serious bodily injury results.
A vehicle registered to a convicted person may be impounded for 1–30 days at the owner’s expense, creating a direct financial and mobility consequence tied to registration.
The statute adopts a statutory definition of “sideshow” (traffic blocked for stunts or exhibitions) effective July 1, 2025, and limits the court’s power to suspend licenses for exhibitions of speed to conduct occurring as part of a sideshow while requiring consideration of hardship and allowing restricted driving instead of full suspension.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition and key definition
This subsection makes it unlawful to engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on any highway or in an offstreet parking facility and explains what qualifies as a speed contest (racing another vehicle, a clock, or a timing device). Crucially, it carves out an exception for events that measure time over routes longer than 20 miles provided vehicles do not exceed posted limits—an attempt to exclude legitimate long-distance rallies or time trials that do not rely on illegal speed.
Aiding, exhibitions, and obstructing roadways
These provisions criminalize aiding or abetting a speed contest, participating in an exhibition of speed, and creating or assisting with barricades or obstructions used to facilitate contests or exhibitions. The obstruction language targets the common practice of blocking traffic to create a stage for stunts and converts that facilitation into a standalone offense.
First-offense penalties and driving-privilege options
Subdivision (e) sets the baseline sanction for a first violation: a county jail term between 24 hours and 90 days, a $355–$1,000 fine, and 40 hours of community service. It gives the court discretion to suspend driving privileges for 90 days to six months or instead restrict them to essential employment travel, and preserves judicial authority to grant probation when appropriate—effectively letting judges tailor mobility penalties to avoid unnecessary employment disruption.
Enhanced penalties for injury and repeat offenders; probation confinement
These sections increase penalties when the illegal conduct causes bodily injury and establish stiffer consequences for repeat offenses within a five-year window, including possible state prison if serious bodily injury results. If the court grants probation for repeat-offense cases, it must impose a county jail confinement condition of 48 hours to six months and order a six-month license suspension or a comparable restriction—tightening consequences even when the court elects probation.
Vehicle impoundment tied to registration
Subdivision (h) authorizes impoundment of a vehicle used in the violation when that vehicle is registered to the person convicted; the impoundment term spans 1–30 days and is at the registered owner’s expense. That creates a direct financial penalty and a practical mobility sanction linked to ownership rather than just the act of driving.
Penalties for aiding/obstruction, sideshow definition, and hardship language
This subsection prescribes punishments for violations of aiding, exhibition, or obstruction, and adds a targeted policy for sideshows: beginning July 1, 2025, suspension or restriction of driving privileges for exhibitions of speed is available only if the exhibition occurred as part of a sideshow. The bill defines sideshows as events where two or more people block or impede traffic to perform stunts for spectators. The provision also directs courts to weigh medical, personal, or family hardships before imposing suspensions.
DMV notification and marking of license restrictions
Courts must clearly mark any judicial driving restriction on a person’s license and promptly notify the DMV in the department’s prescribed format. The DMV must record the restriction in its files and carry that mark forward to any subsequently issued license during the restriction period—creating a procedural pathway to enforce court-ordered driving limitations administratively.
Sentencing scheduling, cross-reference, and act name
Subdivision (k) permits courts to schedule a county jail confinement on days that do not interfere with employment. Subdivision (l) cross-references an existing definition of “offstreet parking facility.” Subdivision (m) assigns the short title: Louis Friend Memorial Act, which codifies the statute’s public-facing name and will be how courts and agencies cite the law.
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
- General driving public and pedestrians — by criminalizing street takeovers and obstructive stunts, the statute aims to reduce immediate roadway hazards and the risk of injury or death from high-speed events.
- Local law enforcement and municipal authorities — the bill consolidates criminal penalties, impound authority, and DMV-recorded restrictions into one framework, giving police and prosecutors clearer statutory tools to deter and sanction street takeovers.
- Victims and injured parties — enhanced penalties when conduct causes bodily injury and the ability to impound offending vehicles provide more modes of redress and deterrence that can limit repeat harms.
- Employers and essential services — by allowing courts to restrict rather than fully suspend driving privileges for work travel, the statute creates a mechanism to preserve critical employment while still imposing deterrent sanctions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual drivers and vehicle owners involved in violations — they face jail time, fines, mandatory community service, and 1–30 day impound fees, which can be financially punitive and disrupt daily life.
- County courts, jails, and prosecutors — increased enforcement and sentencing discretion will generate caseloads, require booking and impound processes, and may increase short-term incarceration and associated administrative costs.
- Department of Motor Vehicles — the DMV must implement procedures to receive court notices, mark restrictions on records, and ensure marks carry forward to replacement licenses, imposing programming and staffing burdens.
- Employers and employees with restricted licenses — even when restrictions are permitted for work travel, short-term suspensions or administrative processing may disrupt employment and require employers to accommodate altered commuting or duties.
- Towing and impound operators and lienholders — while they may collect fees, they also manage greater impound volume and associated administrative work; vehicle liens and owner disputes can increase complexity and legal exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting public safety by imposing swift, mobility-focused penalties that deter dangerous street events, and avoiding collateral harms that disproportionately disrupt livelihoods and invite uneven enforcement; the bill strengthens deterrence at the cost of adding mobility sanctions that can cascade into broader social and economic consequences.
The statute assembles criminal sanctions, administrative license measures, and impound authority into one package, but that fusion creates practical and legal frictions. Key implementation questions include how widely prosecutors will pursue cases that trigger impoundment, whether courts will consistently apply the allowance for restricted driving to protect employment, and how DMV systems will reliably and promptly record short-term restrictions so they take immediate effect.
The exception for timed events longer than 20 miles may require courts to parse event facts (route length, average speeds, and timing methods), creating evidentiary disputes in marginal cases.
The bill also raises risk of uneven enforcement. Terms such as “exhibition of speed” and the contours of what constitutes facilitation or obstruction are fact-dependent and could lead to divergent applications across jurisdictions.
Short jail terms and impoundments are intended as deterrents, but they also produce collateral consequences—lost wages, childcare disruption, and potential vehicle loss—that can outsize the underlying offense, particularly for younger drivers or low-income households. Finally, the requirement that the DMV annotate license restrictions creates an administrative chokepoint: delays or mistakes in recording could undercut court orders or expose drivers and employers to uncertainty and legal challenge.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.