AB 875 adds Vehicle Code section 22651.08 to allow a peace officer to remove two specific categories of small electric vehicles: (1) vehicles with fewer than four wheels that are not electric bicycles under Section 312.5 but are powered by an electric motor capable of propelling the vehicle over 20 mph on a highway when operated by an unlicensed person, and (2) Class 3 electric bicycles being operated by persons under age 16.
The bill also authorizes cities and counties to adopt cost‑recovery charges for removal, seizure, and storage (capped at actual costs and required to be posted online), requires agencies to release seized vehicles after a minimum 48‑hour hold once fees are paid and a request is made during business hours, and permits agencies to require proof of completion of an e‑bicycle safety/training program as a condition of release in cases involving under‑16 Class 3 riders. The provision clarifies enforcement tools for emerging micromobility devices but raises practical questions about vehicle classification, speed‑capability proof, and equity of impound fees and training conditions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits peace officers to tow (a) non‑ebike small vehicles with fewer than four wheels whose electric motors can propel them above 20 mph when driven by an unlicensed operator, and (b) Class 3 e‑bikes ridden by persons under 16. It allows local jurisdictions to recover actual administrative costs and to require safety‑training proof on release in some cases.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include users of high‑speed micromobility devices (3‑wheelers, mopeds, high‑powered scooters), underage riders of Class 3 e‑bikes and their parents, municipal law enforcement and towing/storage contractors, and local agencies that must post fee schedules and process releases.
Why It Matters
The bill fills an enforcement gap created by new electric micromobility vehicles that sit between bicycle and motor vehicle categories, gives localities a mechanism to recover impound costs, and creates conditional release rules tied to safety training—shaping how jurisdictions regulate speed, age limits, and operator licensing for micromobility.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 875 creates a clear, targeted removal authority for two classes of small electric vehicles that have been hard to police under existing law. First, it lets officers tow vehicles that have fewer than four wheels, are not electric bicycles under Vehicle Code section 312.5, and are powered by an electric motor capable of propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour on a highway when the operator lacks a current license to operate it.
Second, it authorizes removal of Class 3 electric bicycles being ridden by anyone under 16, reflecting the age restriction in Vehicle Code section 21213(a).
The bill also sets out local administrative mechanics. Cities and counties may adopt a publicly posted schedule of charges that recovers only the actual costs they incur for removal, seizure, and storage.
An agency must release a seized vehicle after a minimum 48‑hour hold if the request is made during normal business hours and the applicable fees have been paid. For removals involving under‑16 Class 3 riders, the agency may require, as a condition of release, proof that the rider completed the state’s electric bicycle safety and training program (referenced in Streets and Highways Code section 894) or an approved local equivalent; a parent or legal guardian may provide that proof on behalf of the minor.Operationally, the statute ties enforcement to the territorial authority of the peace officer and delegates cost‑recovery and program design to local governments.
That means jurisdictions will need to (1) adopt and post fee schedules, (2) decide local training options or accept the state program under Section 894, and (3) implement procedures for documenting vehicle speed capability, licensing status, payment processing, and training verification. These are practical obligations for police departments, tow operators, and local administrators that will determine how quickly and consistently the new removal authority is used.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lets an officer remove a vehicle with fewer than four wheels that does not qualify as an electric bicycle under VC §312.5 if its electric motor can propel it over 20 mph on a highway and the operator lacks a current license to operate it.
It authorizes removal of Class 3 electric bicycles being operated by riders under age 16 (violating VC §21213(a)).
Localities may adopt charges equal to actual administrative costs for removal, seizure, and storage, and must post the fee schedule conspicuously on their website.
An agency must release a seized vehicle after a minimum 48‑hour hold once a request is made during normal business hours and all applicable removal/seizure/storage costs have been paid.
For vehicles removed because a Class 3 e‑bike was ridden by a minor, an agency may require proof of completion of the state e‑bike safety program (Streets & Highways §894) or a prescribed local bicycle safety course as a condition of release; a parent or guardian may deliver that proof.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Removal authority for sub‑4‑wheel non‑e‑bikes exceeding 20 mph when unlicensed
This subdivision authorizes removal where a device has fewer than four wheels, is not an electric bicycle under VC §312.5, and is powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 mph on a highway while the operator does not hold a current license to operate it. Practically, this targets three‑wheel or other small motorized conveyances that behave like motor vehicles but fall outside existing bicycle rules. Enforcement will hinge on establishing both the vehicle’s classification (not an e‑bicycle) and its speed capability and the operator’s licensing status at the time of contact.
Removal authority for under‑16 Class 3 e‑bike riders
This clause implements the age restriction in VC §21213(a) by allowing officers to remove Class 3 electric bicycles ridden by persons under 16. It creates a straightforward removal trigger tied to a specific statutory violation—use by an underage rider—so officers do not need to rely on other vehicle‑code provisions to impound such e‑bikes.
Local cost recovery and public posting requirement
Subdivision (b) lets a city, county, or city and county adopt a regulation, ordinance, or resolution that imposes charges equal to its administrative costs for removal, seizure, and storage, but caps those charges at the actual costs directly related to those activities. It also requires the jurisdiction to post the schedule of charges on its website in a conspicuous manner. This places transparency and a narrow cost cap on fee recovery, but leaves the details of cost calculation and fee structure to local governments.
Minimum 48‑hour hold and release conditions
Subdivision (c) requires agencies to release a seized vehicle after at least 48 hours if the owner, violator, or authorized agent requests release during normal business hours and pays the applicable removal, seizure, and storage costs. The provision sets a floor (48 hours) rather than a ceiling, and conditions release on payment and a business‑hours request, which will affect how jurisdictions schedule inspections, paperwork, and towing company handovers.
Conditional release tied to safety training for under‑16 Class 3 e‑bike removals
This subdivision permits an agency, when it has removed a vehicle under the under‑16 Class 3 provision, to require proof that the violator completed the state e‑bike safety and training program (Streets & Highways §894) or a related local bicycle safety course as a condition of release. The statute explicitly allows the owner, violator, or the minor’s parent/legal guardian to deliver that proof. The provision hands local authorities discretion to design or accept training and to make educational completion a release precondition.
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 an explicit statutory tool to remove high‑speed, sub‑4‑wheel electric vehicles and underage Class 3 e‑bikes, simplifying enforcement of age and licensing rules for micromobility.
- Cities and counties — can recover actual administrative costs for impound activities and must post fees publicly, reducing unfunded towing/storage expenses if jurisdictions exercise the fee option.
- Organizers and providers of e‑bike safety programs — see potential increased demand where agencies condition release on completion of training, creating local markets for certified courses.
- Licensed road users and pedestrians — may see fewer high‑speed, improperly operated micromobility vehicles on streets and sidewalks, addressing safety concerns tied to faster nonregulated devices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Operators and owners of impounded vehicles — face towing, seizure, and storage fees and the administrative burden of payment and paperwork prior to release; low‑income riders are particularly exposed to these costs.
- Parents and legal guardians of minors — may need to pay for or arrange safety training and deliver proof before their child’s Class 3 e‑bike is returned.
- Local agencies and police departments — must adopt and publish fee schedules, administer holds and releases, and validate training completion, creating operational and recordkeeping work.
- Micromobility manufacturers and distributors — could face market constraints or higher compliance scrutiny as devices are evaluated against the VC §312.5 e‑bike definition and the 20 mph capability threshold.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between public safety (removing high‑speed or underage riders to reduce collisions and enforce age/licensing rules) and equitable access to micromobility (avoiding punitive fees, burdensome hold periods, or inconsistent enforcement that disproportionately affect low‑income riders and young people). The bill gives tools to keep dangerous devices off streets but leaves open how those tools are applied in ways that could restrict mobility or create uneven outcomes across jurisdictions.
The statute raises immediate implementation challenges. The phrase “powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour on a highway” imports a technical, prospective standard that enforcement officers and local agencies must operationalize: do they rely on manufacturer specifications, observed top speed, speedometer readings, or aftermarket modifications?
The bill does not set an evidentiary standard or testing protocol, leaving jurisdictions to develop methods and creating risk of inconsistent enforcement and disputes over capability claims.
Another practical tension concerns licensing and classification. The removal trigger for non‑4‑wheel vehicles requires proof the device is not an electric bicycle under VC §312.5 and that the operator is unlicensed.
But the bill does not specify what class of license is required for particular non‑ebike devices, nor does it address ownership versus operator responsibility when the owner is licensed but the operator is not. These gaps will prompt local policy decisions and potential legal challenges.
Finally, conditioning release on payment and training completion places a financial and administrative burden on families and individuals, which could have disproportionate effects on low‑income and youth riders and produce equity concerns absent fee waivers or alternative compliance pathways.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.