Irene’s Law California: The 2031 DUI Rule Explained

Last verified against dmv.ca.gov: October 28, 2026

What Irene’s Law Is — The Bill in One Section

Irene’s Law is short. The entire act does two things: Section 1 gives it the name — “This act shall be known, and may be cited, as Irene’s Law” — and Section 2 adds one new section to the Vehicle Code, section 13352.7. There are no other sections, no criminal penalties, no fee schedule and no program created by the bill. That brevity is why the page can quote the operative text almost in full, and why any coverage that describes Irene’s Law as a wide-ranging crackdown is describing the four-bill package, not this bill.

The bill’s author is Assembly Member Tom Lackey. It was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 25, 2026, as Chapter 446 of the Statutes of 2026, alongside three companion DUI bills signed the same day. The chapter number is your fastest authenticity check: if a source describes “Irene’s Law” without Chapter 446 or without the January 1, 2031 operative date, it is probably working from an earlier draft or from package-level press coverage, and its numbers should not be trusted.

The Legislative Counsel’s digest — the official summary printed with the chaptered text — describes the bill this way: commencing on January 1, 2031, the DMV would be required to revoke the driving privilege of a person convicted of a DUI that proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver, where that person has four or more prior convictions within a 10-year period for DUI-related offenses, and the DMV would be prohibited from reinstating that person’s privileges until 72 months after the revocation, subject to requirements including agreeing to maintain a functioning, certified ignition interlock device for a mandatory term of 72 months. The digest is a summary, not the law. The law itself is section 13352.7, and the next section works through it word by word.

Who Irene’s Law Applies To — The Trigger Test

Section 13352.7 applies only when every element below is present. Miss one element and the section does not apply, however serious the case looks. Read the test as a checklist, in order.

Element 1: the current offense must be an injury DUI under section 23153(a), (b), (d), (e) or (g)

Section 23153 is DUI proximately causing bodily injury to a person other than the driver. The subdivisions listed in section 13352.7(a) are (a), (b), (d), (e) and (g). Subdivision (f) — the drug-only injury-DUI subdivision — is not in the list. That omission matters: a drug-only injury DUI as the current offense does not trigger section 13352.7 on the chaptered text, even with four priors. Likewise, a non-injury DUI under section 23152 as the current offense does not trigger it, however many priors the driver has. The current offense is the anchor of the whole section; everything else is measured against it.

Element 2: four or more separate prior violations that resulted in a conviction

The priors must be four or more separate violations of section 23103 as specified in section 23103.5 (the “wet reckless” — reckless driving pled in place of a DUI), section 23152, section 23153, or any combination of those, that resulted in a conviction. Three points follow. First, a wet reckless counts: the statute expressly includes section 23103-as-specified-in-23103.5 violations, so a driver who pled three DUIs down to wet reckless and then collected a fourth DUI still has four priors on the text. Second, only convictions count — an arrest, a dismissed charge, or a diversion that did not end in conviction is not a prior under this wording. Third, “separate” is doing real work: whether two counts arising from a single incident count as two priors is a record question for the DMV abstract and a lawyer, and this guide does not settle it.

Element 3: the current offense occurred within 10 years of the priors

The 10-year window is measured from the offense, not from the conviction date or the sentencing date. A driver whose four priors all fall within the 10 years before the current offense is inside the window. A driver with four priors on the record but one of them more than 10 years before the current offense has a counting problem: the statute requires that the offense “occurred within 10 years of four or more separate violations,” so a stale prior may not help reach four. Drivers often get this wrong in both directions — assuming old priors never count, or assuming every prior ever collected counts forever. The statute counts a 10-year window, and the DMV record is the document that shows which priors fall inside it.

Element 4: a conviction or finding, and a DMV action

Section 13352.7(a) opens “upon a conviction or finding of a violation” — broader language than “conviction” alone, which in this code family can include juvenile findings. This guide quotes the broader wording and flags it as a reading, not a verified DMV practice, because the DMV’s implementation notices for 2031 have not been written yet. What is certain is the actor: section 13352.7 directs the department — the DMV. The court sentence for the underlying section 23153 conviction (custody, fines, restitution) is a separate track and is not changed by this bill. Confusing the DMV track with the court track is the most common reader error about this law, and the comparison table in the next section keeps them apart.

These examples illustrate the statutory test. They are not predictions about any real case, and the counting questions in examples D and E are exactly the questions to take to a lawyer with the DMV record in hand.

What It Changes vs. Current Law — The “Extension,” Explained

The working title for this page calls Irene’s Law a “DUI restricted license extension.” The bill never uses the word “extension,” so the page owes readers a plain explanation of what is being extended, and against what baseline. The answer has two halves: a longer clock, and a restricted-license opening inside that clock.

Today, a repeat injury-DUI driver faces revocation under section 13352 and IID terms under the DMV’s statewide IID framework. The DMV’s own IID table (dmv.ca.gov, statewide IID page) sets the mandatory IID restriction term for an injury conviction under section 23153 or Penal Code section 191.5(b) at 1 year with no priors, 2 years with one prior, 3 years with two priors, 3 years with three or more priors, and 4 years with one or more prior felony convictions. Irene’s Law replaces that scale for its narrow tier with a single 72-month DMV action and a matching 72-month IID agreement — six years instead of a maximum of four, and no full license back before six years. That is the extension: two extra years of IID at the top of the scale, and a fixed six-year action instead of a tiered one.

The counterweight is section 13352.7(c). Without it, a 72-month action would mean 72 months of no driving at all. With it, the driver may apply for a restricted license after 12 months — but only while staying in the DUI program, only with a certified IID installed and verified, and only with financial responsibility proved and fees paid. The restricted license is therefore not “getting your license back early.” It is conditioned, limited driving during years two through six of the action, and the 72-month IID clock keeps running through it. A driver who treats the restricted license as a full license has misunderstood the section.

The program bar is also higher, and it is post-offense only. Full reinstatement requires a full 30-month DUI program — or an 18-month program where no 30-month program is available in the county of residence or employment, or a Penal Code section 8001 program — and section 13352.7(b)(2) and (b)(3) are explicit: no credit for program activities completed before the date of the current violation, and enrollment, participation and completion must all occur after that date. A driver who completed a program for an earlier case starts again. The restricted-license stage needs only the first 12 months of that program, but continued satisfactory participation is a condition of keeping the restriction. Stop participating and the condition fails.

The 72-Month Clock, Step by Step

Read this timeline with the DMV notice for the individual case beside it. The statute sets the framework; the notice states the dates, the fees and the restriction scope for that driver. Where the statute is silent, this guide says so instead of filling the gap.

The Four-Bill Package — Which Bill Does What

Most of the confusion about Irene’s Law comes from package-level coverage. Four DUI bills were signed on September 25, 2026. They do four different things, on two different operative dates. Memorize this table and most bad articles about the package become easy to spot.

Why two bills wait until 2031

The 2031 operative dates are chaptered fact — section 13352.7(d) and the equivalent provision in AB 1685 state them expressly. The reason for the wait is reported, not chaptered, and this guide attributes it: Governor Newsom’s signing message directed the Legislature to pass interim legislation requiring the DMV to adopt a centralized system for tracking DUI convictions, on the stated ground that the state lacks the technology to enforce AB 1685 and AB 1687 under the current system (summaries of the September 25, 2026 signing in Streetsblog California and Santa Monica Next, read October 28, 2026; the governor’s release is also carried in the Braun’s Law brief). CalMatters reporting on DMV tracking gaps is the background context for that message, also attributed. What readers should take from this is practical: the 2031 date is not a typo and not a delay tactic by the DMV — it is in the statute, and interim tracking legislation is the thing to watch in 2027.

One related trap: AB 1546’s chaptered text also contains conditional repeal-and-replace sections dated 2031, double-jointed to AB 1830 — a bill that was never enacted. Those sections never operate. They do not change AB 1546’s 2027 felony ladder, and they have nothing to do with Irene’s Law. A source that cites “AB 1546 operative 2031” without that qualification is describing dead machinery.

The Stale-Version Trap — 8 Years and 3 Priors Are Wrong

This is the single most valuable correction on the page, and it deserves its own section, because the wrong numbers are still in circulation a month after chaptering.

As introduced and in committee, AB 1687 looked very different. The Assembly Public Safety committee analysis (hearing March 24, 2026) described a bill that would authorize the DMV to revoke a license for eight years for a person convicted of three or more specified impaired-driving offenses within 10 years, with a much broader trigger list that included gross vehicular manslaughter, vessel offenses and several tiered combinations. That version did not survive. The chaptered law, signed September 25, 2026, is 72 months — six years, not eight — and four or more priors, not three, with the trigger narrowed to a section 23153(a), (b), (d), (e) or (g) current offense.

Package-level signing coverage made the confusion worse. The September 2026 package story carried by Streetsblog California and Santa Monica Next summarized the package as “third offense loses license for eight years, four or more priors face felony charges.” Neither half of that sentence describes chaptered AB 1687: the felony charge for four or more priors is AB 1546, and the eight-year license figure is the dead Irene’s Law draft. The sentence is understandable as shorthand for a four-bill package — and useless as a statement about any single bill. This guide unpacks it bill by bill so readers can see exactly where each number belongs.

What Irene’s Law Does NOT Change

• Nothing before January 1, 2031. A 2026–2030 injury-DUI case is judged under the law in force at that time. Irene’s Law is not a defense, not a mitigation, and not a penalty for any case decided before 2031.
• Not the criminal sentence. Custody, base fines and restitution for the underlying section 23153 conviction are set by the court under other sections. Section 13352.7 is a DMV-privilege section only.
• Not first- or second-offense rules. APS hearing rights (10 calendar days to request a hearing), SR-22 requirements and DUI school tiers for other cases are untouched by this bill.
• Not the IID program’s sunset. The statewide IID program’s extension through 2033 (AB 366) is a different statute with a different date. Do not merge the two dates.
• Not plea bargaining, not Braun’s Law, not AB 1546. The Watson advisement on plea-downs is SB 907; the felony ladder is AB 1546. Each bill is a separate tool, and this page does not borrow their provisions.
• Not a guaranteed restricted license at month 12. The statute says the driver “may apply” if all six conditions are met. Application is not entitlement, and the DMV decides on the record.
• Not a defined driving scope. Section 13352.7’s own text does not state where or when the restricted license holder may drive. Do not print “work and DUI program only” as a section 13352.7 rule — that scope, where it applies, comes from other restricted-license sections and from the DMV notice for the individual case.

Who Was “Irene”? — What We Could Not Verify

The bill text names the act “Irene’s Law” and gives no biography. No official source checked for this guide — the chaptered text, the Legislative Counsel’s digest, the committee analyses, the governor’s signing coverage, or the companion Braun’s Law research — identifies a namesake, a victim narrative, or a family advocacy story for AB 1687. One attributed exception: September 2026 package coverage (Streetsblog California, syndicated to Santa Monica Next) describes Irene as a 12-year-old girl killed by a repeat drunk driver — but no surname, date, place, crash detail, family statement, or author statement confirming that account was found in any source checked, including the committee analyses, so this guide prints the attributed line and nothing more. This guide states that gap plainly instead of filling it: we do not know, from verified sources, who Irene was, and we will not invent a story for the name. That restraint is deliberate. A namesake story attached to a bill name without a source is exactly the kind of plausible-sounding detail that spreads through coverage and then has to be corrected. If a verified account emerges — from the author’s office, the governor’s office, or reputable reporting that names its source — it belongs here as a short, sourced paragraph. Until then, the name is the name, and the law is the law.

The contrast with Braun’s Law is instructive and worth one sentence: SB 907’s namesake, Braun Levi, is documented in a Senate press release and in USTA Southern California coverage. Irene’s Law has no equivalent verified account in the sources checked. The two bills are not symmetrical in their public record, and this guide does not pretend otherwise.

What to Do Now (2026–2030)

Irene’s Law gives a driver in 2026 no new right and no new penalty. What it gives is a counting warning, and the practical steps below follow from that warning — all framed as general information, not legal advice.

If you are facing an injury-DUI case today

Current law applies. Protect the APS hearing window — 10 calendar days from receipt of the suspension or revocation order to request a hearing (see APS Hearing California). Talk to a California DUI defense lawyer before pleading: a plea today becomes a prior tomorrow, and the plea-down advisement rules under Braun’s Law (from 2027) change what warnings attach to a plea. Expect the current section 13352 / IID framework for license recovery (see DUI Restricted License California), not the Irene’s Law timeline.

If you already have multiple priors

Every new conviction from now on is a prior that could count toward a future section 13352.7 trigger if a post-2031 injury DUI occurs. This guide states that as a counting warning, not as a prediction about retroactivity: whether pre-2031 convictions count as section 13352.7 priors for a post-2031 offense is not stated in the chaptered text, and it is flagged as an open question for a lawyer and for future DMV guidance. Do not let anyone sell you a certain answer to that question today — the statute does not give one.

If you are researching for a 2031 case

Watch two things: the interim tracking-system legislation the governor’s signing message called for, and the DMV’s section 13352.7 implementation notices. Both should exist well before January 1, 2031, and both could change the practical application of the section without changing its text. This page’s “Last verified” line dates the research; the 2031 provisions should be re-verified in late 2030 before anyone relies on them for a real case.

Mistakes to avoid, in one list

1. Quoting the 8-year / 3-prior draft as law. Check Chapter 446 and the operative date first.
2. Applying Irene’s Law to a 2026–2030 case. It is not operative until 2031.
3. Counting a dismissed charge or an arrest as a prior. The statute requires violations that resulted in a conviction.
4. Assuming a drug-only injury DUI triggers it. Section 23153(f) is not listed in section 13352.7(a).
5. Assuming the month-12 restricted license is automatic. It is an application on six conditions.
6. Budgeting from another page’s fee. Section 13352.7 sets no dollar figure; read the DMV notice.
7. Counting an old DUI program toward reinstatement. Pre-violation program activity earns no credit.
8. Mixing the DMV action with the court sentence. Irene’s Law changes the privilege, not the criminal penalty.

Related Guides

Last verified against dmv.ca.gov: October 28, 2026. Statutes and DMV practice change — confirm current rules on dmv.ca.gov or with the Mandatory Actions Unit at (916) 657-6525 before you act.