AB 2276 directs the California Department of Motor Vehicles to run a pilot program that requires people convicted of specified reckless or excessive-speed offenses to install and use a certified aftermarket “active intelligent speed assistance device” (AISAD) on any vehicle they operate. Courts notify convicted drivers and the DMV places a license restriction barring operation of vehicles that lack a functioning certified device; tampering is a misdemeanor and noncompliance pauses credit toward the required term.
The bill sets technical and market guardrails: devices must be tamper resistant, providers must be DMV‑certified, and an income‑scaled fee schedule limits out‑of‑pocket cost for lower-income offenders (with providers covering the remainder). It also confines data sharing, mandates reporting and an evaluation, and sunsets the pilot on January 1, 2033.
The measure creates immediate operational duties for courts, DMV, and device vendors and raises practical questions about enforcement, privacy, and compatibility with leased or financed vehicles.
At a Glance
What It Does
The DMV must establish a pilot that makes installation of a certified aftermarket AISAD mandatory for persons convicted of certain sections related to reckless driving and excessive speed. Courts notify convicted persons, specify the term (which varies by number/type of priors), and the DMV places a correspondingly restricted license record.
Who It Affects
Directly affects drivers convicted under Sections 23103, 23109, 23104, 22348, and 23582; aftermarket device manufacturers and companies that install or monitor devices; the DMV and courts who must track compliance; and vehicle lessors or lienholders when devices are fitted to financed or leased cars.
Why It Matters
AB 2276 shifts recidivism policy toward engineering controls—physically limiting vehicle speed rather than solely using fines or suspension—and creates a regulated market for certified aftermarket speed‑limiting devices, with built‑in confidentiality rules and an income‑based cost structure that could determine program uptake and equity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2276 defines an “active intelligent speed assistance device” (AISAD) as an aftermarket system that uses location or mapping data to actively limit a vehicle’s speed to posted or preset limits, is tamper resistant, and can report attempts to disable it. The bill explicitly excludes factory‑installed OEM speed control systems from the definition.
Only devices and firms certified by the DMV may install, monitor, service, or remove these devices.
When a court convicts a person of the listed offenses, it either may or must (depending on prior convictions and offense type) order installation of a functioning certified AISAD on any vehicle the person operates for a specified term. The court notifies the DMV, which flags the driver record with a restriction that the person may only operate vehicles equipped with a functioning device.
The convicted person must arrange installations through certified providers, submit proof of installation to the DMV, and pay a fee determined by the DMV; an exemption exists if the person certifies within 30 days that they have no vehicle or access to a vehicle.The law treats tampering or directing others to tamper as a misdemeanor and extends the required installation term by 120 days for violations; any noncompliant time does not count toward the mandatory term. Providers must maintain collected data securely and treat identifying information as confidential; data can be shared only under limited circumstances such as court order, statutory direction, or with the ordering court or DMV for program violations.
The bill requires an income‑scaled fee schedule—ranging from 10 percent up to full cost depending on federal poverty level, with a special rule for CalFresh recipients—and obliges providers to verify income via tax returns, recent pay stubs, or unemployment verification.Liability language narrows responsibility for vehicle manufacturers with respect to aftermarket device performance, but preserves liability if a manufacturer knowingly repairs or updates an aftermarket device that then causes harm. The DMV must certify providers, post program information publicly, and the Transportation Agency will receive a data report (covering 2027–2031) and a program assessment with recommendations by mid‑2032.
The pilot applies only to convictions occurring on or after January 1, 2027 and sunsets January 1, 2033 unless extended by later statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The AISAD must be an aftermarket, tamper‑resistant device (excluding OEM factory speed control systems) that actively limits speed to posted or preset limits and can report attempts to disable it.
Tampering with or arranging tampering is a misdemeanor and triggers a mandatory 120‑day extension of the device‑installation term; any time spent noncompliant is not credited toward the required period.
DMV certification is mandatory for devices and providers; only certified providers may install, service, monitor, repair, or remove devices.
The bill prescribes an income‑based fee schedule: offenders ≤100% FPL pay 10% of device/program costs; 101–200% FPL pay 20%; 201–300% FPL pay 40%; CalFresh recipients pay 50%; 301–400% FPL pay 90%; others pay 100%, with providers covering the remainder.
The DMV must report program data to the Transportation Agency covering Jan 1, 2027–Jan 1, 2031 by July 1, 2031, the Transportation Agency must assess outcomes and report to the Legislature by July 1, 2032, and the pilot sunsets Jan 1, 2033.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — what counts as an AISAD and who is a provider
This section sets the technical and market perimeter: an AISAD is limited to aftermarket devices that use location‑based controls, must be tamper resistant, and must report circumvention attempts. The explicit exclusion of OEM systems channels the program into the aftermarket sector and avoids implicating new vehicle certification regimes; it also narrows the universe of eligible interventions to devices that can be retrofitted to existing cars.
Pilot program mandate for DMV
The DMV must establish the pilot to reduce violations of specific reckless and speeding statutes by requiring certified AISADs. That directive forces the DMV to develop certification standards, oversight practices, and operational rules rather than leaving the program as a discretionary court option.
Court notification and DMV record restrictions
Courts must notify convicted individuals that an AISAD is required and transmit abstracts of conviction to the DMV; the DMV then records a license restriction limiting the driver to vehicles equipped with a functioning device. This creates a two‑party enforcement loop (court + DMV) and converts the sentence from purely penal (fine/jail) to an ongoing equipment condition tied to driving privileges.
Installation, proof, fees, and exemption for no‑vehicle individuals
Convicted persons must arrange installation by certified providers, submit proof on a DMV form, and pay an administrative fee. The statute provides a narrow exemption if within 30 days the person certifies they own no vehicle, have no access at home, and no longer have access to the vehicle used in the offense; however, the exemption is conditional and triggers future obligations if the person later obtains vehicle access.
Prohibitions, criminal sanction, and term extension for tampering
This section criminalizes tampering with the device (or soliciting tampering), bans operation without a required device, and makes failure to return the device upon program completion an offense. The misdemeanor designation and automatic 120‑day extension are concrete enforcement levers designed to deter circumvention and ensure continuous compliance.
Data security, confidentiality, and limited sharing rules
Providers must securely maintain device data; identifying monitoring data is confidential and available only to authorized employees and may be shared only under court order, state law, or with the ordering court/DMV for program violations. The section permits depersonalized aggregated data to be used for research, but restricts broader disclosure, raising practical questions about audit access, retention policies, and law enforcement or civil discovery requests.
Certification, liability carve‑outs, and income‑based fee schedule
Only DMV‑certified devices/providers satisfy the program. Companies apply for certification; the statute limits OEM liability for aftermarket devices except where a manufacturer knowingly repairs or updates an aftermarket device that causes harm. The bill mandates a detailed fee schedule tied to federal poverty levels, requires providers to verify income with tax returns or recent pay statements, and makes providers responsible for absorbing the portion of device cost the offender cannot pay under the subsidy rules.
Reporting, program assessment, applicability window, and sunset
The DMV must supply implementation data to the Transportation Agency covering 2027–2031 by July 1, 2031; the Transportation Agency then assesses outcomes and reports to the Legislature by July 1, 2032 with recommendations. The division applies only to offenses occurring on or after Jan 1, 2027 and is set to expire Jan 1, 2033 unless extended—framing the measure as a time‑limited pilot designed for evaluation.
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
- Road users and potential crash victims — the program directly targets drivers with reckless or excessive‑speed convictions by installing engineering controls that can reduce the likelihood and severity of future high‑speed incidents.
- Courts and probation systems — judges gain a supervised, equipment‑based sanction that can be imposed instead of, or alongside, license suspension and may better enforce driving restrictions in the community.
- Certified aftermarket providers and installers — the bill creates a regulated market and revenue stream for companies that obtain DMV certification to supply, install, monitor, and service AISADs.
- Lower‑income offenders — the income‑scaled fee schedule and CalFresh provision reduce upfront cost barriers, increasing the practical accessibility of the device option compared with a flat fee program.
Who Bears the Cost
- Convicted drivers — they must arrange installation, pay fees (except where subsidized), face misdemeanor exposure for tampering, and risk extensions of mandatory terms if noncompliant.
- DMV and courts — operational duties include certifying vendors, tracking device restrictions on driver records, processing proof of installation, setting fees, and handling enforcement referrals, producing administrative overhead.
- Device providers and installers — certification, secure data storage, income verification, and absorbing subsidized cost portions impose compliance and capital costs; smaller firms may struggle with these requirements.
- Lessors, lienholders, and lessees — fitted devices on financed or leased vehicles introduce notification obligations and potential contractual friction, particularly where a lessor must authorize or be informed of modifications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between maximizing public safety by imposing a physical, automated speed control on high‑risk drivers and preserving individual mobility, privacy, and fairness: the bill enforces an engineering solution that can reduce recidivism but requires accurate technology, secure data practices, and cost mitigation to avoid disproportionately burdening low‑income or mobility‑dependent individuals.
The bill raises several implementation and policy tensions. First, automated speed control trades individual autonomy and mobility for engineered safety; in practice this requires robust technical standards for accuracy (map/mapping data, speed limit updates) to avoid false slowdowns or failures that could create hazards.
The statute leaves many technical and operational details to the DMV’s certification process, which creates variability risk while manufacturers and providers develop compatible systems across diverse vehicle makes, models, and model years.
Data protection and confidentiality are central but incomplete fixes: the law limits disclosure and allows sharing only under narrow conditions, yet it does not specify retention periods, audit rights, or how providers must respond to law enforcement or third‑party subpoenas. The liability carve‑out for vehicle manufacturers may spur aftermarket innovation but shifts risks to providers; requiring providers to absorb subsidized costs also changes provider economics and could limit market entry or push up contracting prices.
Finally, the exemption for people with no vehicle access and the income‑based fees attempt to protect low‑income individuals, but they could also create perverse incentives or gaps—drivers who cannot afford installation and lose access to vehicles may suffer greater employment or mobility harms that are not addressed within the bill.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.