AB 1748 amends Vehicle Code Section 13352 to extend many statutory suspension and revocation periods for convictions under Sections 23152, 23153, and specified motor‑vehicle exhibition offenses. The bill ties reinstatement to proof of financial responsibility and successful completion (or ongoing enrollment) in licensed driving‑under‑the‑influence (DUI) programs, adds specific ignition interlock device (IID) installation, maintenance and tamper rules, and clarifies reporting duties for juvenile courts and the treatment of out‑of‑state convictions.
Operationally, the bill creates new administrative obligations for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), DUI program providers, IID installers, and courts: it mandates IID servicing intervals, requires installers to notify DMV of tampering or removal, conditions restricted‑license eligibility on IID installation and program participation, and sets a retroactive effective date of January 1, 2019 while including a statutory sunset of January 1, 2033. These changes increase enforcement leverage but also raise capacity, access, and equity questions for treatment providers, rural defendants, commercial drivers, and the DMV.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lengthens statutory suspension and revocation terms for specified DUI and related offenses, conditions license reinstatement on proof of financial responsibility and completion or enrollment in licensed DUI programs, and requires ignition interlock devices to be installed, serviced at least every 60 days, and monitored for tampering. It also requires juvenile court officials to report findings to DMV and treats qualifying out‑of‑state convictions as California convictions for suspension purposes.
Who It Affects
Drivers convicted of offenses under Sections 23152, 23153, and certain vehicle exhibition statutes (including juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court); holders of commercial driver’s licenses; the DMV; licensed DUI program providers; and certified IID installers and vendors.
Why It Matters
AB 1748 shifts enforcement toward longer off‑road periods and IID‑conditioned restricted licenses, increasing demand for long‑term DUI programs and IID services while enlarging administrative duties for DMV and courts. Compliance costs and access to required programs and devices could create practical barriers for low‑income and rural drivers and complicate CDL workforce management.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1748 makes the DMV immediately suspend or revoke driving privileges when it receives a court abstract showing a conviction, or a juvenile court report showing an adjudication, for specified DUI and related offenses. The bill keeps the established gatekeepers — convictions and juvenile findings — but layers new and stricter downstream conditions for getting driving privileges back.
Those conditions include formal proof of financial responsibility (insurance or equivalent), and evidence that a person has enrolled in or completed an approved DUI treatment program, or is actively participating in one ordered by a court.
Rather than blanket reinstatement after a fixed term, the bill emphasizes program participation and ignition interlock compliance as prerequisites. For many offenses the DMV must advise eligible drivers that they can apply for a restricted license only if they install a certified ignition interlock device, submit the installer’s “Verification of Installation,” agree to device maintenance and random retesting rules, and remain enrolled and satisfactorily participating in the required treatment program.
The DMV charges fees to cover administrative costs and will not reinstate privileges until those fees, proof of financial responsibility, and program completion/enrollment documentation are provided.The bill adds operational duties for IID installers: each vehicle fitted with a functioning certified IID must be serviced at least once every 60 days for recalibration and monitoring, and the installer must notify DMV if the device is removed, tampered with, or the driver fails calibration/maintenance requirements three or more times. If a driver tampers with or removes the IID, or repeatedly misses maintenance obligations, DMV must immediately re‑suspend or re‑revoke the privilege for the remainder of the original term, though it retains discretion to restore a restricted privilege if the person later demonstrates compliance.AB 1748 also clarifies two administrative points: juvenile court findings specified in the statute count as convictions for suspension purposes and must be reported immediately to DMV; and qualifying convictions in other U.S. jurisdictions, territories, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Canada are treated as California convictions for suspension.
Finally, the bill sets temporal limits on its application: it applies only to qualifying offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019, became operative on January 1, 2019, and includes a statutory sunset on January 1, 2033 unless extended by later law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill increases the suspension for a Section 23152 conviction punishable under Section 23536 from six months to one year.
It raises the suspension period for a Section 23152 offense punishable under Section 23540 from two years to three years.
The revocation term for a Section 23153 offense punishable under Section 23560 increases from three years to five years.
The revocation term for a Section 23152 offense punishable under Section 23546 increases from three years to ten years.
The bill extends revocation for certain Section 23153 convictions (punishable under Sections 23550.5 or 23566) from five years to ten years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Triggers and overall framework for suspension/revocation
This subdivision sets the basic trigger: DMV must immediately suspend or revoke upon receiving a court abstract or an immediate report from juvenile court officials that lists specified DUI or related convictions/findings. It preserves the linkage between conviction and administrative action while adding multiple alternative penalty durations and conditions for restricted licenses. Practically, it centralizes DMV action on court reporting and places the burden on the driver to meet post‑conviction administrative and programmatic requirements before reinstatement.
Shorter suspensions and restricted license prerequisites
These paragraphs govern shorter suspension scenarios and the pathway to a restricted license: they require proof of financial responsibility and satisfactory completion or enrollment in licensed DUI programs, and place IID installation, ongoing program participation, submission of verification forms, and payment of DMV fees as explicit prerequisites. The DMV must advise eligible drivers about restricted licenses and may impose fees to cover administration.
Longer suspensions and multi‑year revocations with program options
These paragraphs impose longer suspension or revocation periods for higher‑level or repeat offenses and spell out program length options (18‑month or 30‑month programs, or programs under Penal Code Section 8001). They allow courts to refer defendants into alternate programs and require that enrollment and completion occur after the current conviction date so prior coursework cannot be credited. They also repeat the IID, financial responsibility, and fee conditions tied to restricted licensing for these more serious categories.
Additional revocation categories and exhibition‑of‑speed rules
These passages handle other specified offense permutations, including combined or repeat offenses and exhibition‑of‑speed violations under Section 23109. They preserve court discretion to order suspensions within a statutory range, maintain program participation and IID conditions for restricted licenses, and establish mandatory proof of insurance before reinstatement.
Juvenile findings, reporting duty, and out‑of‑state equivalency
Subdivision (b) designates juvenile adjudications for listed offenses as convicting events for DMV purposes; (c) requires immediate reporting by juvenile courts or officers; and (d) treats qualifying convictions in other U.S. jurisdictions, territories, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Canada as California convictions for suspension/revocation purposes. That combination expands administrative exposure for individuals with foreign or out‑of‑state records and tightens the reporting pipeline between juvenile courts and DMV.
Restricted license timing, termination, IID maintenance, and tampering rules
Subdivision (e) makes restricted privileges effective once DMV receives required documents and fees, and it authorizes DMV to terminate restrictions upon program noncompliance; (f) lets IID maintenance for the mandatory term substitute for some suspension periods if all other conditions are met. Subdivision (i) requires IID servicing at least every 60 days and mandates installer reporting of removals, tampering, or repeated maintenance failures. Subdivisions (j) and (k) protect existing IID obligations and define 'bypass' (failure to take or pass random retests), establishing clear grounds for immediate re‑suspension or re‑revocation.
Temporal limits: retroactivity, operative date, and sunset
The statute applies only to qualifying offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019, with that date also listed as the operative date. The bill includes a sunset clause: the section automatically repeals on January 1, 2033 unless a later statute removes or extends the sunset. The combination of retroactivity and a sunset creates a defined enforcement window for the modified penalties and administrative requirements.
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
- Victims and public safety advocates — Longer off‑road periods and mandatory IID conditions aim to reduce the short‑term recidivism risk posed by impaired drivers and can increase public safety on roadways.
- Prosecutors and courts — Clearer statutory durations, program options, and reporting obligations give criminal justice actors predictable administrative outcomes and enforcement levers tied to program compliance and IID tampering.
- Licensed DUI program providers — Expanded reliance on enrollment and completion as reinstatement conditions will increase demand for certified 18‑ and 30‑month programs, potentially growing provider caseloads and funding opportunities.
- Certified IID installers and vendors — Mandatory installation verification, 60‑day servicing, and reporting duties create ongoing service revenue and a more regular cadence of device maintenance business.
Who Bears the Cost
- Drivers convicted of covered offenses — Extended suspension and revocation periods, program enrollment requirements, IID installation and maintenance costs, and DMV administrative fees increase financial burdens and mobility loss, disproportionately affecting low‑income drivers.
- Commercial drivers and employers — CDL holders face disqualification or loss of commercial privileges and may be ineligible for restricted commercial driving privileges, creating workforce and compliance disruptions for transportation employers.
- DMV and county courts — Expanded reporting, verification, fee collection, enforcement of noncompliance notifications from installers, and revocation/restoration workflows will increase administrative workload and require system/process updates.
- Rural counties and small DUI program providers — The bill’s reliance on 18‑ and 30‑month licensed programs may overwhelm limited local program capacity, forcing longer travel or delays for defendants and creating pressure on county social services budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between public‑safety goals (longer off‑road periods and strict IID enforcement to reduce impaired driving) and access/rehabilitation and equity concerns (long suspensions, program capacity limits, and device costs that can block employment and treatment access, especially for low‑income and rural drivers). There is no clean technical fix: strengthening deterrence and public protection raises practical barriers to the very treatment engagement the bill requires for reinstatement.
AB 1748 trades stricter, longer administrative penalties and an IID‑centered restricted‑license pathway for a set of practical implementation challenges. First, the bill conditions relief on enrollment in or completion of licensed long‑term DUI programs (18 or 30 months).
In many counties these program slots are limited; scaling to meet increased demand will require funding and licensing capacity. That bottleneck can delay reinstatement even where the driver can pay for IID installation, producing an uneven patchwork of outcomes by geography and income.
Second, the law increases reliance on ignition interlock devices as both a monitoring and a re‑entry tool, but it also imports new operational complexity: mandatory service every 60 days, installer reporting duties, and immediate DMV suspensions for tampering. Those requirements raise questions about device reliability, consumer privacy (device‑generated data and reporting), and the administrative burden placed on installers and DMV to track and act on notifications in near real time.
Finally, the combination of retroactivity to 2019 and a sunset in 2033 creates planning friction: counties, providers, and the DMV must invest resources to implement and enforce a regime that may be temporary, complicating long‑term contracts, staffing, and infrastructure decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.