Braun’s Law (SB 907): California’s New DUI Law Explained

Who Was Braun Levi?

In May 2025, Braun Levi — an 18-year-old Loyola High School student from Los Angeles and a nationally ranked tennis player — was struck and killed while walking in Manhattan Beach by a suspected repeat drunk driver. His family had recently relocated to Manhattan Beach after their Pacific Palisades home was destroyed in the January 2025 Palisades Fire.

Braun’s mother, Jennifer Levi, turned grief into advocacy: she joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s California legislative efforts and pressed lawmakers to close the gap that had let repeat offenders avoid the formal DUI warning. The bill’s author, Senator Bob Archuleta, carried the legislation as a personal mission — his own granddaughter, Samantha Alex Robles Haun, was killed by a repeat drunk driver in December 2024. “Nothing will ever bring my Samantha back or bring Braun back to his family,” Archuleta said at the signing, “but today California is taking meaningful action to help prevent another family from experiencing this devastating loss.”

News reports on the Levi crash note that the driver had a prior DUI case that was dismissed after a plea to a lesser offense — without ever receiving the formal Watson warning. That is the exact scenario the new law targets. (The criminal case was reported as still pending as of this guide’s verification date; this guide does not address it further.)

What Braun’s Law Actually Changes

Chaptered SB 907 is a short, focused bill — it amends just two Vehicle Code sections. Everything it does falls into two parts:

Part 1 — the warning (new Vehicle Code §23635(d)). When a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a different or lesser offense substituted for an alleged DUI (Vehicle Code §23152) — the classic example is a DUI pled down to “wet reckless” — the court must give the defendant the formal Watson advisement and put it on the record. The section is now officially cited as “Braun’s Law” (Vehicle Code §23635(a)).

Part 2 — hit-and-run (rewritten Vehicle Code §20001). The duty itself is unchanged — a driver in a crash causing injury or death must stop, give information, and render aid — but the punishment tiers get significantly tougher when the driver has a qualifying prior conviction within the previous 10 years. Details and the before/after table are below.

One accuracy note, because some early coverage got this wrong: the chaptered law does not create third-DUI felonies (that is AB 1546, below), does not expand ignition-interlock requirements, and does not wait until 2031 (those are AB 1685 and AB 1687). Provisions from earlier drafts — including a proposed three-year-per-prior sentence enhancement and Penal Code “violent felony” changes — were removed before the bill was chaptered. This guide follows the chaptered text, not the press releases.

The Watson Advisement, Explained

To understand why a warning is the centerpiece of a tough-on-DUI law, you need the backstory — a 1981 court case, a 2004 statute, and the plea-bargain hole in between.

1981: People v. Watson. The California Supreme Court held that a drunk-driving death can support a second-degree murder conviction on an “implied malice” theory: the driver intentionally drove impaired, knew the conduct was dangerous to human life, and consciously disregarded that risk. But proving what a driver subjectively knew is hard — and that is where the warning comes in.

2004: the Legislature creates the paper trail. AB 2173 (Chapter 502, Statutes of 2004), codified at Vehicle Code §23593, requires courts to give every person convicted of DUI (or alcohol-related reckless driving) a scripted warning, and §23593(c) requires the fact that the warning was given to be recorded on the abstract of conviction sent to the DMV. Signed minute orders plus the DMV abstract give prosecutors the documentary proof that the driver knew the risk — the key ingredient of a future Watson-murder prosecution.

The hole: the 2004 statute keys the warning to convictions. When a DUI charge was pled down to a lesser offense — wet reckless being the common one — the formal advisement attached inconsistently. Some counties gave it as a matter of practice; statewide, the record was patchy. A repeat offender whose first DUI “disappeared” into a lesser plea could later argue they were never formally warned — weakening a murder prosecution after a fatal crash.

The fix (Braun’s Law): new Vehicle Code §23635(d) keys the warning to the allegation plus the substituted plea, not the conviction. From January 1, 2027, the judge must give the Watson advisement whenever a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a different or lesser offense in place of an alleged DUI. The warning goes on the court record either way — so the paper trail survives the plea bargain.

What the fix does not do matters as much: it does not end plea bargaining in DUI cases, it does not change the penalty for the case being pled down, and it does not make a later murder charge automatic. It simply makes sure the warning — and the proof that it was given — exists if that person ever drives impaired again and someone dies.

How the New Plea-Down Warning Works: 4 Steps

Hit-and-Run Penalties: Before vs. After Braun’s Law

The second half of SB 907 rewrites Vehicle Code §20001’s punishment tiers. The trigger for the tougher tiers: the hit-and-run occurs within 10 years of a separate conviction for DUI (§23152), DUI causing injury (§23153), alcohol-related reckless driving (§23103 as specified in §23103.5), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Penal Code §191.5), or vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence (Penal Code §192(c)(1)).

Worked example. A driver with a 2022 DUI conviction flees the scene of a 2027 crash that injures another person. Under current law that flight is a misdemeanor; under Braun’s Law it can be charged as a felony carrying 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison — because the prior DUI conviction falls within the 10-year window. If the crash had caused a death, the range with the prior would be 3, 4, or 5 years.

Fine print from the statute: “permanent, serious injury” means the loss or permanent impairment of a bodily member or organ (§20001(d)); courts must consider the defendant’s ability to pay when setting fines and may reduce them; and the separate five-year consecutive enhancement for fleeing after a vehicular-manslaughter conviction (§20001(c)) is unchanged.

AB 1546: The New Felony Ladder for Repeat DUIs

Assembly Bill 1546 (Asm. Nick Schultz; Chapter 444, Statutes of 2026; operative January 1, 2027) rewrites the repeat-DUI charging tiers. Qualifying priors are DUI (§23152), DUI causing injury (§23153), and alcohol-related reckless driving (§23103 as specified in §23103.5) — in any combination — that resulted in convictions within 10 years.

What “wobbler” means for you: the prosecutor — not a fixed rule — chooses whether to file the case as a misdemeanor or a felony, based on the facts, the priors, and the county’s filing standards. A third DUI in 10 years does not automatically become a felony; it becomes a case the DA may file as one. Only the fifth-or-later DUI in the window is an automatic felony.

For the full third-DUI picture — the complete before/after penalty tables, the separate DMV suspension track, costs, and what AB 1546 leaves untouched — see our repeat DUI guide.

License consequences travel with the tier. A third-DUI conviction brings DMV revocation under Vehicle Code §13352(a)(5); fourth-and-later convictions revoke under §13352(a)(7). Convictions under these tiers also carry a three-year habitual traffic offender designation. (See our suspended license reinstatement guide for how revocations and restricted licenses work.)

Two conforming changes worth knowing:

• Child in the car (§23572). The add-on jail terms when a child under 14 was a passenger are re-mapped to the new structure: 48 hours (first-tier cases), 10 days (second-tier), 30 days where the DUI is punished as a misdemeanor under §23546, and 90 days where punished as a misdemeanor under §23550 — none of which may be stayed.
• Good-driver discount (Insurance Code §1861.025). Felony DUI convictions under the new tiers now disqualify a driver from the 20% good-driver discount — a repeat DUI can raise your insurance bill for years even after the criminal case ends. (Our SR-22 guide covers the insurance fallout of DUI convictions.)

What AB 1546 does not do: despite some committee-era coverage, the chaptered bill contains no ignition-interlock extension and no longer license-revocation periods — those provisions were dropped before passage. (The IID program’s extension through 2033 comes from a different bill, AB 366.) Our ignition interlock device guide explains the terms, costs, and the AB 366 vs AB 1546 distinction. Technical repeal-and-replace sections dated 2031 in the bill were double-jointed to AB 1830, which was never enacted — they never operate.

The 2031 Provisions: AB 1685 and AB 1687 (Irene’s Law)

Two of the four bills carry express January 1, 2031 operative dates — written into the chaptered texts. The Governor’s signing message tied the delay to the DMV’s tracking systems: the department does not yet have the centralized conviction-tracking infrastructure to enforce these provisions accurately, and the Legislature was directed to build it first.

AB 1685 — points (Ch. 445). From January 1, 2031, a conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and with gross negligence (Penal Code §191.5(a)) carries 3 DMV violation points instead of 2 — moving the worst offenders closer to negligent-operator suspension (4 points in 12 months, 6 in 24, 8 in 36). The DMV must also disclose conviction and accident-report abstracts for this offense for 10 years, matching other DUI-related violations. Scope discipline: ordinary DUI and DUI-causing-injury stay at 2 points, and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated without gross negligence stays at 2 as well.

AB 1687 — “Irene’s Law” (Ch. 446). From January 1, 2031, a driver convicted of DUI causing bodily injury (Vehicle Code §23153) with 4 or more prior qualifying convictions within 10 years faces a 72-month (6-year) DMV suspension of the driving privilege. Full reinstatement waits the full 72 months and requires proof of financial responsibility plus completion of a DUI program; a restricted license is possible after 12 months conditioned on maintaining a certified ignition interlock device for a mandatory 72 months. (Early versions of this bill used an 8-year window for 3+ priors — the chaptered law is 72 months for 4+ priors.) For how restricted licenses work today, before 2031, see our DUI restricted license guide. Our dedicated DUI laws hub links to the full explainer, now live: Irene’s Law California.

Operative-Date Master Timeline

The single biggest source of confusion about this package — even in law-firm coverage — is when each piece starts. Nothing below is in force yet; everything is dated from its chaptered text:

The practical rule: conduct is judged under the law in force on the offense date. A third DUI committed in December 2026 is sentenced under the old misdemeanor-only rule even if the case resolves in 2027; a hit-and-run in January 2027 falls under Braun’s Law tiers.

What the Package Does NOT Change

Because headlines compress, here is what stays exactly as it is:

• First and second DUI penalties are untouched. A standard first DUI remains a misdemeanor (up to 6 months jail, $390–$1,000 base fine plus assessments, 6-month court suspension + 4-month APS suspension, 3-to-9-month DUI school, 3–5 years informal probation). Nothing in the package moves these.
• Plea bargaining still exists. Braun’s Law adds the warning to the plea — it does not ban pleas or change the sentence for the case being pled down.
• Ordinary DUI stays a 2-point offense on the DMV record. Only the narrow gross-negligence intoxicated-manslaughter conviction goes to 3 points, and only in 2031.
• No new ignition-interlock mandates in 2027. The package’s only new IID term is AB 1687’s 72-month device requirement, operative 2031. California’s existing statewide IID program continues under its own extension through 2033.
• The warning is not a murder conviction. The Watson advisement creates the evidence a future murder prosecution would need — knowledge of the risk. A murder charge after a later fatal crash still requires prosecutors to prove every element.
• Wet reckless is still priorable. A wet-reckless plea counts as a prior DUI for 10 years, and the DMV’s administrative (APS) suspension still applies at arrest regardless of how the criminal case resolves.

If You Are Facing a DUI Case

A DUI arrest starts two clocks at once:

• The DMV clock (fast). At arrest you receive a notice (the “pink slip,” Form DS-367) that doubles as a 30-day temporary license. You have 10 calendar days to request an administrative (APS) hearing at a DMV Driver Safety Office — miss it and the suspension takes effect automatically after 30 days. Requesting the hearing pauses the suspension until the hearing is decided. Our APS hearing guide covers the full process.
• The court clock. The criminal case — arraignment, possible plea negotiations, trial — runs separately. How the case resolves (DUI conviction vs. a plea to a lesser offense) determines the penalties and, from January 1, 2027, whether the Watson advisement goes on your record under Braun’s Law.

After a conviction, the DMV consequences — suspension or revocation, restricted-license eligibility, SR-22 insurance filings, and ignition-interlock requirements — are handled through the DMV, not the court. Our suspended license reinstatement guide walks through each suspension type step by step, and our SR-22 guide covers the insurance filing most DUI convictions trigger. For the full penalty ladder under current law, see California DUI laws.

How the Package Became Law

The four bills moved as a package and passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins. SB 907 cleared the Senate 39–0 on concurrence and the Assembly 77–0; AB 1546 passed 72–0 / 40–0; AB 1685 passed 72–0 / 37–0 (concurrence 75–0); AB 1687 passed 73–0 / 39–0. Governor Newsom signed all four on September 25, 2026, saying: “Getting behind the wheel when you are impaired is inexcusable — especially when it results in the loss of someone’s life. Today, we’re creating tougher laws and greater accountability for those who break the law.”

SB 907’s supporters included the Los Angeles and Orange County District Attorneys’ offices, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the California Safe Roads Coalition. Opposition — from groups including the ACLU and Californians United for a Responsible Budget — argued that ever-harsher penalties have little deterrent effect and fall hardest on low-income drivers; early drafts carrying “violent felony” classifications were pulled after Senate Public Safety pushback, which is part of why the chaptered SB 907 is narrower than first introduced.

News coverage framed the package as a response to rising roadway deaths and to investigative reporting on gaps in the DMV’s tracking of high-risk drivers — including the finding, cited in legislative debate, that the department had in some cases reissued licenses to drivers with vehicular-manslaughter convictions. The 2031 operative dates are the Legislature’s answer: build the tracking system first, then switch on the point and revocation changes.

Related Guides

Last verified against leginfo.legislature.ca.gov: October 23, 2026. Statutes change — confirm current law on the California Legislative Information site or with a lawyer before acting.