California Considers Mandatory Breathalyzers for DUI Offenders

Proposed bill would expand existing ignition interlock program to all DUI convictions

Mar. 30, 2026 at 3:27pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An extreme close-up of a car's ignition interlock device glowing faintly red, reflecting the complex issues surrounding drunk driving legislation and enforcement.As California weighs mandatory breathalyzers for DUI offenders, the debate over public safety, individual rights, and judicial discretion continues.Irvine Today

California legislators are considering a bill that would require anyone convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) to install a breathalyzer device on their vehicle. The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, expands the state's existing program that mandates ignition interlock devices for repeat DUI offenders. Supporters say the measure will improve public safety and prevent avoidable tragedies, while opponents argue it removes judicial discretion.

Why it matters

The proposed legislation is part of an ongoing debate around balancing public safety, individual rights, and the role of the justice system in addressing drunk driving. Proponents believe mandatory breathalyzers will deter impaired driving and protect communities, while critics contend it sets a 'one-size-fits-all' approach that undermines judicial discretion.

The details

The bill, known as AB 1830, would require anyone convicted of a DUI to install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle. This expands California's existing pilot program, which only applies to those with at least two prior DUI convictions. The devices prevent a car from starting if they detect a blood alcohol content above a certain limit. The bill has bipartisan support, including co-authors from both parties, as well as backing from various public safety organizations. However, it faces opposition from groups like the California Public Defenders Association, who argue it removes the ability of judges to consider individual circumstances.

  • The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee last week and will next be heard in the Appropriations committee.
  • The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine.

The players

Cottie Petrie-Norris

A Democratic Assemblymember from Irvine who introduced the bill to require breathalyzers for all DUI offenders.

Colin Campbell

A parent whose children were killed by a drunk driver who had a previous DUI conviction, and who testified in support of the bill.

California Public Defenders Association

A group opposing the bill, arguing it removes judicial discretion in DUI cases.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“'There should be no 'first-time free pass' — accountability must begin with the first conviction, before offenders become repeat threats. California's current system is failing too many families. [Assembly Bill] 1830 is about prevention, accountability and making sure no family has to experience another avoidable tragedy.'”

— Cottie Petrie-Norris, Assemblymember

“'Nothing would have stopped her except a bill like 1830.'”

— Colin Campbell, Parent of victims

“'AB 1830 removes the ability of judges to exercise reasoned judgment in individual DUI cases. Judicial discretion exists because cases differ. Courts are often best positioned to determine whether an (ignition interlock device) meaningfully advances public safety or whether another sanction — such as license restrictions, alcohol education programs or probation conditions — would be more effective.'”

— California Public Defenders Association

What’s next

The bill will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations committee after its unanimous approval in the Public Safety committee.

The takeaway

This proposed legislation highlights the ongoing debate around balancing public safety, individual rights, and the role of the justice system in addressing drunk driving. While supporters believe mandatory breathalyzers will deter impaired driving, critics argue it removes judicial discretion to consider individual circumstances.