Braun's Law Signed: Two of California's Four DUI Bills Wait Until 2031

Governor Newsom announced on September 25, 2026 that he had signed a four-bill California DUI package headed by SB 907, called Braun's Law. Only SB 907 is recorded as chaptered so far, and the toughest provisions in the package do not become operative until January 1, 2031.

Information last verified on September 26, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: SB 907 is law. The Legislature's own action log records, both dated 09/25/26, "Approved by the Governor." and "Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 443, Statutes of 2026." For the other three bills in the package, AB 1546, AB 1685 and AB 1687, the Governor's Office says they were signed on September 25, but as of 11:24 UTC on September 26 the leginfo action log for each still showed only "Enrolled and presented to the Governor" and no chapter number. Chaptering is a clerical step that can trail a public signing announcement, so we report both records rather than merge them.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California statutes only, and it addresses what the enacted and enrolled bill texts say. It does not cover DUI law in any other state, and it does not address federal law. For the penalties that apply to a California DUI arrest today, see our guide to California's current DUI penalty ladder.

What Happened

The Governor's Office published a release on September 25, 2026 announcing the signing of SB 907 and a package of DUI bills. SB 907 is authored by Senator Bob Archuleta of Pico Rivera. It is named for Braun Levi, an 18-year-old Loyola High School student from Pacific Palisades who, according to the Governor's release, was struck and killed by a suspected repeat drunk driver in May 2025 while walking in Manhattan Beach.

Governor Newsom is quoted in that release saying that "Getting behind the wheel when you are impaired is inexcusable", a sentence the release continues by adding that this is especially so where a life is lost. Jennifer Levi, Braun's mother, is quoted saying: "Today, I am proud to be a Californian and inspired by what can happen when people use their voices and leaders choose to take action."

The official legislative record tells a more precise story than the announcement does, and the difference matters to anyone trying to work out what the law is.

For SB 907, the record is complete. The bill history shows it was enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. on September 9, 2026, then two entries dated September 25, 2026: "Approved by the Governor." and "Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 443, Statutes of 2026."

For the other three, the record is not complete. As of 11:24 UTC on September 26, 2026, the action log for AB 1546 ended at "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m." on September 14. AB 1685 ended at "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m." on September 3. AB 1687 ended at "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m." on September 9. None carried an approval entry or a chapter number. We are not treating the absence of those entries as a contradiction of the Governor's announcement, because the chaptering step routinely lags. We are reporting what each source shows.

The signing window itself is close to closing. Article IV, Section 10(b)(2) of the California Constitution provides that "Any bill passed by the Legislature before September 1 of the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session and in the possession of the Governor on or after September 1 that is not returned on or before September 30 of that year becomes a statute." All four bills were passed in August and presented in September, so September 30 is the outside date.

What Braun's Law Actually Changes

SB 907 is titled "An act to amend Sections 20001 and 23635 of the Vehicle Code, relating to driving offenses." Two sections, and each does something quite different.

Vehicle Code 23635, the advisement. This is the part the bill is named for, and it is narrower than the coverage suggests. The section already existed. Added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 118, it already required a court to state on the record its reasons when a DUI allegation is dismissed, when a lesser offence is substituted, or when a prior conviction is stricken, and required the prosecution to file a written statement of reasons when it moves for one of those things. Anyone describing those requirements as new is describing 1998 law.

What changes is the structure. The section as currently codified carries no subdivision letters at all; it runs as continuous unlettered text. SB 907 is what breaks it into (a) through (d), carrying the 1998 requirements forward as (b) and (c). So a citation to "Vehicle Code 23635(b)" does not refer to anything until the amendment is operative.

What SB 907 adds is subdivision (a), which gives the section its name, and subdivision (d), which reads in full:

"(d) If a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a different or lesser offense as a substitute for an alleged violation of Section 23152, the court shall give an advisement pursuant to Section 23593."

Section 23593 is the existing Watson advisement. Its operative text is a script the court must read:

"You are hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If you continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and, as a result of that driving, someone is killed, you can be charged with murder."

Until now that advisement attached to convictions: Section 23593(a) requires it for a person convicted of a violation of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23152 or 23153. The gap SB 907 closes is the plea to a substituted charge. A driver whose DUI is negotiated down to something that is not one of those listed offences could previously walk out without ever having been read the warning. From January 1, 2027, the court must read it whenever the plea is to a lesser or different offence substituted for a Section 23152 allegation.

That warning is not decorative. California recognises second-degree murder on an implied-malice theory for a later drunk-driving death, the doctrine that takes its name from People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290. The advisement is the record that the driver was told. Section 23593(c) requires the fact of the advisement to be noted on the abstract of conviction sent to the DMV, which is how it surfaces in a later prosecution.

Vehicle Code 20001, the hit and run penalties. This is the half of SB 907 that changes exposure the most, and it is barely mentioned in the announcement. The enacted text adds a new subparagraph (b)(1)(B):

"A person who violates subdivision (a) within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, or a violation of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code, or paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, that resulted in a conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

A parallel new subparagraph (b)(2)(B) covers the worse case. Where the crash caused death or permanent serious injury and the driver has one of those qualifying priors within 10 years, the term becomes three, four or five years in state prison, or 90 days to one year in county jail, and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. Note the conjunction: in (b)(2)(B) the fine is joined by "and" rather than the "or" used elsewhere in the section. As in (b)(2)(A), the subparagraph keeps the proviso that the court, "in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the record, may reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment required by this paragraph."

The Legislative Counsel's Digest summarises the shift as making the injury-crash offence "punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony" where existing law made it a misdemeanour, and imposing "an increased felony penalty" for the death or serious-injury offence. The qualifying prior is a condition of both halves, not only the second. The Digest attaches the new penalties "if either of those violations occurred within 10 years of a separate driving under the influence, reckless driving, or gross vehicular manslaughter violation, as specified." An injury hit and run by a driver with no such prior stays where it was, under subparagraph (b)(1)(A). The definition of "permanent, serious injury" is unchanged and still means, under subdivision (d), "the loss or permanent impairment of function of a bodily member or organ."

The practical reach here is wider than DUI. The qualifying priors include wet reckless under Section 23103.5, DUI under Sections 23152 and 23153, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code 191.5, and vehicular manslaughter under Penal Code 192(c)(1). A driver with any of those on the record in the last decade who then leaves an injury scene is now looking at a state prison triad. Readers dealing with the underlying offence can start from California's hit and run statute and its penalties.

The Parts That Wait Until 2031

This is the finding that most changes how the package should be read, and it comes from the bills themselves rather than from any summary of them.

AB 1687, Irene's Law (Assemblymember Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale). The bill adds a new Vehicle Code 13352.7. Subdivision (a) provides:

"Notwithstanding any other law, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (g) of Section 23153 and if the offense occurred within 10 years of four or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152, 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in a conviction, the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for 72 months."

Subdivision (b) sets the reinstatement conditions: proof of financial responsibility plus successful completion of a 30-month DUI programme, an 18-month programme where a 30-month one is unavailable in the person's county of residence or employment, or a programme specified in Penal Code Section 8001. The interlock requirement sits in a different place in the section. Subdivision (c) lets the person apply for a restricted licence after 12 months of the revocation period, and subdivision (c)(4) makes that restricted licence conditional on agreeing "to maintain a functioning, certified ignition interlock device for a mandatory term of 72 months." The Legislative Counsel's Digest describes the same interlock term as one of the requirements attaching to reinstatement, so the two read slightly differently; the operative text is subdivision (c).

Then subdivision (d): "This section shall become operative January 1, 2031." The Legislative Counsel's Digest says the same thing in its own words, describing a requirement on the department "commencing on January 1, 2031."

AB 1685 (Lackey). The bill amends, repeals and adds Vehicle Code 1808 and 12810. Its substantive change assigns three DMV violation points to a conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code 191.5(a), an offence that currently carries no specific point value in Section 12810 at all, while the less serious Penal Code 191.5(b) already carries two. It also extends the ten-year abstract-disclosure window in Section 1808 to cover Penal Code 191.5(a). Each amended section is paired: the current version "shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed," and the replacement "shall become operative on January 1, 2031." The Digest states flatly: "This bill would make its provisions operative January 1, 2031."

AB 1546 (Assemblymember Nick Schultz, D-Burbank) is the exception, and it takes a little care. The bill contains both an ordinary set of amendments (Sections 4, 5 and 6) and an alternative set carrying 2031 dates (Sections 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2). It would be easy to read those 2031 dates as the bill's timetable. They are not. They are double-jointing, the drafting device California uses when two bills amend the same code section in the same year. Section 9 of AB 1546 says the alternatives "shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2027, (2) each bill amends Section 23550 of the Vehicle Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 1830."

AB 1830 was not enacted. Its action log ends on August 19, 2026 with "Read second time. Ordered to third reading." It never passed the Senate. So the condition fails, the alternatives never operate, and Section 5 is the version that governs, on the ordinary January 1, 2027 date. Section 5 rewrites Vehicle Code 23550 into two subdivisions. Subdivision (a) covers three priors in 10 years and keeps the existing wobbler structure. Subdivision (b) is the change:

"If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of four or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)."

The county-jail alternative that appears in subdivision (a) is absent from subdivision (b). That is what turns the four-prior case from a wobbler into a straight felony.

So the package splits cleanly in two. SB 907 and AB 1546 operate from January 1, 2027. AB 1685 and AB 1687 wait until January 1, 2031.

What California DUI Law Says Today

None of this changes anything for a DUI arrest that happens this week. Until January 1, 2027 the existing structure governs, and it is worth restating so the new law can be measured against it.

California counts priors within a 10-year lookback. Vehicle Code 23550 currently treats a DUI with three or more priors in that window as a wobbler, punishable under Penal Code 1170(h) or by 180 days to one year in county jail, with a $390 to $1,000 fine, DMV revocation, and a three-year habitual traffic offender designation. The words "or more" are what AB 1546 strikes from subdivision (a), which is how the four-prior case is split into a subdivision of its own and loses the jail alternative. Vehicle Code 23550.5 covers the felony-prior cases. The full ladder, including the first-offence and administrative suspension tracks, is set out in our California DUI penalties guide, and the state-by-state differences are collected on the DUI laws by state hub.

Two related points readers commonly run into. A DUI arrest that also produces a collision claim runs on a separate civil track, covered in our note on how fault and insurance work after a California crash. And a DUI conviction has a long tail on a record, which is the subject of our guide to record relief and dismissal in California.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The gap between how this package was announced and how it was drafted is the story, and it is not a gotcha. It is a legislative design choice with consequences readers should be able to see.

Two of the four bills carry a January 1, 2031 operative date. That is four years and three months after the signing. Delayed operative dates in California usually signal one of a few things: a department needs lead time to build systems, a fiscal committee wanted the cost pushed outside the current planning window, or the delay was the price of moving the bill at all. Vehicle Code 13352.7 and the Section 12810 point schedule both run through DMV systems, so a lead time is not surprising. Four years is a long lead time. We are not in a position to say which explanation applies here, and we will not guess.

What we can say is what the delay does. A reader who takes the announcement at face value would believe that a fourth DUI conviction with an injury now brings a six-year licence suspension and a six-year interlock. It does not, and will not until 2031, and the record of the bill says so in a single sentence in subdivision (d). Between now and then, the governing provisions are the ones already on the books.

The AB 1546 point is the opposite kind of trap. Read quickly, the bill looks like another 2031 measure, because six of its sections carry 2031 dates. Reading the contingency clauses and then checking AB 1830's status is what shows those sections to be dead letters and the 2027 version to be the operative one. A summary that reported AB 1546 as a 2031 change would understate what actually happens in fifteen months.

On Braun's Law itself, the advisement extension is a modest provision doing a specific job. The Watson doctrine only works as a deterrent if the driver was told, and the abstract records that they were told. Plea bargaining was the hole in that record, because the advisement statute keys to a list of convictions rather than to the DUI allegation that was charged. Closing that hole is a sensible, narrow fix. It is also, by design, a fix whose effect shows up only in a later prosecution of a later offence, which is a slower and less visible mechanism than the announcement's framing implies.

The hit and run amendments in the same bill are, in our reading, the provision most likely to change a real sentence in 2027, and they received the least attention.

What Happens Next

Three things are worth watching, each with a date attached.

First, chaptering. AB 1546, AB 1685 and AB 1687 should acquire approval entries and chapter numbers on the leginfo action log. Under Article IV, Section 10(b)(2), the outside date for the Governor to act on these bills is September 30, 2026.

Second, January 1, 2027, when SB 907 and the operative sections of AB 1546 take effect. From that date the Section 23593 advisement attaches to substituted pleas, and a DUI with four or more priors in 10 years is a straight felony.

Third, January 1, 2031, when Vehicle Code 13352.7 and the AB 1685 amendments become operative.

How This Affects You

These are general observations, not advice about any particular case.

Nothing in this package changes the penalty for an offence committed before its operative date. California applies the law in force when the offence occurred, so a 2026 arrest is measured against the 2026 statutes.

Anyone reading a summary that says California has just imposed six-year licence revocations on repeat DUI offenders should check the operative date before relying on it. The provision exists, it is enacted or on the verge of being enacted, and it does not operate until 2031.

The prior-conviction definitions in these bills are broader than the word DUI suggests. A wet reckless under Section 23103.5 counts as a prior for the new hit and run enhancement and for the four-prior triggers, and so do the vehicular manslaughter offences in Penal Code 191.5 and 192(c)(1). A person who believes a plea to a reduced charge left them with a clean slate for these purposes would be reading the statutes too narrowly.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers California statutes as recorded on the Legislature's own bill texts and action logs, verified on September 26, 2026, and it reports the state of the record on that date. Bill status and chaptering can change, and how any provision applies turns on the specific offence date and charging decisions in an individual case. Consult a lawyer licensed in California about your own situation.

Related articles

• California DUI penalties, BAC limits and licence consequences
• DUI laws by state
• California hit and run law and its penalties
• Fault and insurance after a California car accident
• Record relief and dismissal in California

---

Last updated: 2026-09-26. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-26.