AB 366 rewrites how the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) handles post-conviction driving privileges for a range of alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses and certain vehicle exhibitions. The statute makes installation and upkeep of a certified ignition interlock device a standard condition for obtaining a restricted driver’s license and ties continued driving to enrollment in and satisfactory participation with licensed driving‑under‑the‑influence programs.
The bill also creates specific administrative duties for installers and the DMV (notification on tampering or removal, fee recovery for administration), treats juvenile findings and many out‑of‑state convictions as equivalent to adult convictions for suspension purposes, and includes built‑in definitions and enforcement rules (including what counts as a “bypass”). These changes tighten pathways back to driving but shift costs, monitoring, and enforcement tasks to drivers, installers, and the DMV — with practical implications for access and program capacity across counties.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 366 conditions restricted driver’s licenses on the installation and maintenance of a certified ignition interlock device, proof of financial responsibility, and enrollment in an approved DUI program. The DMV must suspend or revoke privileges on conviction or juvenile finding and may immediately suspend for tampering, removal, or repeated failures to comply with interlock maintenance.
Who It Affects
People convicted or juveniles found to have committed specified Vehicle Code offenses (DUI, aggravated DUI, and certain exhibition-of-speed offenses); ignition interlock installers and manufacturers; licensed DUI treatment program providers; and the DMV’s compliance and licensing operations.
Why It Matters
The law makes ignition interlocks a primary mechanism for restoring limited driving privileges, standardizes enforcement tools (tamper reporting, servicing cadence, formal ‘bypass’ definition), and shifts administrative duties — changing how courts, treatment providers, and installers interact with the DMV and with affected drivers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 366 requires the DMV to immediately suspend or revoke a person’s driving privilege on receipt of a conviction or certain juvenile findings for specified DUI and related offenses. The statute creates a parallel path to limited driving via a restricted driver’s license, but that path is conditioned on several items the person must provide to the DMV: verification that a certified ignition interlock device has been installed, satisfactory enrollment in (and ongoing participation with) a licensed DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and payment of departmental fees.
The law makes clear that credit will not be given for program activities completed before the current violation and that the department follows court-ordered program referrals where the court has exercised that authority.
Enforcement is direct and mechanical. Installers must service each vehicle’s device at least once every 60 days to recalibrate and report problems.
The statute defines “bypass” (not taking a random retest or failing it above a 0.03% BAC threshold) and treats attempted removal, tampering, or three or more maintenance failures as grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of the driving privilege. The DMV may, at its discretion, restore privileges if a person later proves they are in compliance, but otherwise the original remaining suspension or revocation term is reimposed.AB 366 also clarifies several cross‑cutting rules that matter for implementation.
Juvenile court findings for the covered offenses are treated as convictions for licensing purposes and must be reported immediately to the DMV. Convictions from other U.S. states, territories, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or Canada that would equate to California’s DUI offenses are treated as California convictions for suspension.
The statute ties restricted-license activation to the DMV’s receipt of all required documents and fees and authorizes the department to charge fees sufficient to recover reasonable administrative costs.Finally, the statute includes temporal limits and linkage to other code sections. It applies only to offenses that occurred on or after January 1, 2019, specifies interaction with Section 23575.3 (the interlock rules referenced throughout), and contains an express sunset—repeal of the section on January 1, 2033 unless extended.
Those triggers affect who benefits from the interlock path and how long the policy will remain on the books unless the Legislature acts again.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Suspension and revocation terms vary by offense category: examples include a six‑month suspension for certain 23152 convictions, one year for some 23153 convictions, two years for other 23152 offenses, and revocations ranging from three to five years for more serious violations.
A restricted license requires submission of a ‘Verification of Installation’ form and ongoing maintenance of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device as a condition of driving.
Installers must service each interlock-equipped vehicle at least once every 60 days and must notify the DMV if a device is removed, tampered with, or the driver fails maintenance or calibration requirements three or more times.
The statute defines ‘bypass’ to include failing to take a random retest or failing a random retest with a breath alcohol concentration greater than 0.03% BAC, which triggers immediate suspension authority for the DMV.
The section is operative for offenses on or after January 1, 2019, becomes effective immediately for operation, and contains an automatic repeal (sunset) on January 1, 2033 unless extended by later statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Offense‑specific suspension, revocation, and restricted‑license criteria
These paragraphs set the core penalty matrix: different statutory offenses and sentencing ranges lead to specified suspension or revocation lengths. For each penalty tier the DMV must not reinstate normal driving privileges until the person provides proof of financial responsibility and satisfactory proof of completion or enrollment in an approved DUI program. The DMV is required to accept court‑ordered program selections in place of default programs where the court has ordered an alternative, and it explicitly disallows credit for program work done before the current offense—an important detail for repeat offenders seeking early reinstatement.
Conditions for the restricted driver’s license tied to interlock and program participation
For each tier that allows a restricted license, the statute lists required elements: proof of program enrollment or completion, agreement to continue participation, submission of the Verification of Installation form, maintaining a functioning certified ignition interlock device, proof of financial responsibility, payment of reissue/restriction fees, and an administrative fee to cover DMV costs. The DMV must advise eligible persons about the restricted license option and implement the verification process before issuing restricted privileges.
Activation, termination, and early reinstatement tied to compliance
The restricted privilege begins only when the DMV receives all required documents and fees. The department must terminate a restriction and re‑impose suspension or revocation on notification from a DUI program that the person has failed to comply. Conversely, continued maintenance of a functioning interlock for the mandatory term (including any term credits earned) allows the department to reinstate driving privileges when other requirements are met — creating a clear compliance‑for‑mobility relationship.
Installer duties, juvenile reporting, and out‑of‑state equivalency
Installers must perform service and recalibration at least every 60 days and must report to the DMV when a device is removed, tampered with, or the driver accumulates maintenance failures. Juvenile court judges, hearing officers, and referees must immediately report qualifying findings to the DMV, because the law treats those findings as convictions for licensing purposes. The department must also treat qualifying convictions from other U.S. jurisdictions and Canada as California convictions for suspension purposes, expanding the statute’s reach beyond state borders.
Continuing duties, definitions, applicability, and sunset
The statute preserves a person’s continuing duty to comply with Section 23575.3 even after reinstatement, and it defines key operational terms: ‘bypass’ and ‘random retest’ (including the 0.03% BAC threshold for retests). It limits the substantive reach of the restriction conditions to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019, sets the operative period accordingly, and includes an express repeal date (January 1, 2033), meaning the policy includes a legislative review point unless extended.
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‑safety stakeholders and crash victims: the structured interlock‑plus‑program pathway is designed to reduce recidivism by keeping drivers who test positive off the road and requiring treatment participation before full reinstatement.
- Noncommercial drivers seeking limited mobility: eligible drivers gain a predictable, conditional pathway back to restricted driving—useful for commuting or family obligations—so long as they comply with device and program requirements.
- Licensed DUI treatment programs: courts and the DMV must rely on program enrollment and compliance as a reinstatement condition, increasing referrals and steady demand for licensed program slots.
- Ignition interlock manufacturers and certified installers: the law expands the market and imposes standardized servicing cadence and reporting duties that create ongoing revenue and recurring business.
Who Bears the Cost
- Convicted drivers (and their households): required device installation, maintenance visits every 60 days, program enrollment fees, financial‑responsibility requirements, and DMV fees create recurring and upfront costs that fall on individuals.
- Low‑income and rural residents: where interlock installers or 30‑month programs are scarce, the time and travel burdens and program availability limits can compound costs and restrict access to restricted licenses.
- Ignition interlock installers and small businesses: mandatory recalibration cadence and reporting create administrative burden, potential liability for missed reports, and operational costs that smaller vendors must absorb.
- Employers and commercial drivers: holders of commercial licenses lose eligibility for restricted commercial privileges and may face loss of employment or need to seek noncommercial restricted licenses, disrupting labor and business operations.
- DMV and local courts: while fees are authorized, the DMV must administer verification, fee collection, tamper investigations, and discretionary restorations, and juvenile courts must implement immediate reporting — adding administrative work and coordination obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma in AB 366 is a classic safety versus access trade‑off: it substantially advances public safety by making interlocks and treatment the ticket back to driving, but doing so imposes recurring costs, monitoring obligations, and geographic inequities that restrict mobility—particularly for low‑income and rural Californians—unless paired with capacity building or financial assistance.
The statute creates a clear safety‑first enforcement framework but leaves open several practical and equity questions. First, the law relies heavily on enrollment in licensed DUI programs and on the local availability of 18‑ or 30‑month programs; program scarcity in some counties will create geographic disparities in who can qualify for restricted licenses and for how long.
The statute allows courts to refer individuals to particular programs, but it does not allocate funding to expand program capacity or subsidize costs for low‑income drivers, so the path to mobility may be effectively closed for some.
Second, the mechanical enforcement model — frequent servicing, device data, and mandatory reporting — improves detectability of tampering but raises operational and technical risks. Devices can produce false positives, require calibration, and produce privacy‑sensitive logs of breath tests and timestamps; the statute mandates installer reporting but does not set standards for data retention, access, or dispute resolution when a driver contests a reported tamper or failed test.
Finally, the built‑in sunset (January 1, 2033) limits the statute’s permanence and could reduce incentives to build the long‑term infrastructure and data collection needed to evaluate outcomes; unless lawmakers extend the section, the DMV and stakeholders must plan for an expiration that will complicate long‑range investments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.