Braun’s Law: California’s Responsibility
Anya Dalal
In May 2025, Braun Levi was an 18-year-old Loyola High School senior and a nationally ranked tennis player, looking forward to college. Having helped other teens cope with the Palisade fires, which destroyed his own house, he was known for his kindness and leadership. However, weeks before graduation, he was killed in Manhattan Beach by a suspected drunk driver who was driving on a suspended license. His death shocked communities across our state and forced many people to confront a hard truth: California’s current system still allows dangerous drivers back on the road.
Out of this tragedy, Braun’s family created the Live Like Braun Foundation to turn grief into action. Sharing Braun’s story with lawmakers, his mother Jennifer Levi has advocated for stronger California DUI laws and brought renewed attention to the gaps in existing policy and the need for meaningful reform.
One major step forward is Assembly Bill 366 (AB 366), authored by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris. AB 366 strengthens California’s ignition interlock device (IID) program by requiring most first-time DUI offenders to install an IID, extending the program through 2033, creating income-based cost reductions, and improving statewide oversight. These breathalyzers prevent a car from starting if alcohol is detected, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that IIDs reduce driving while impaired (DWI) repeat offenses by about 70% when the IID is used. AB 366 closes an important safety gap and moves California closer to national best practices.
However, AB 366 is not enough on its own. It still allows too many exceptions, and enforcement varies across counties. Some first-time offenders may avoid interlocks, and there are limited consequences for drivers who fail to comply. Stronger monitoring and clearer statewide standards would improve the law’s impact and ensure its consistent application.
To address accountability, California Senator Bob Archuleta introduced Senate Bill 907 (SB 907), which includes a provision known as “Braun’s Law.” This would require courts to issue a “Watson Warning” whenever a DUI charge is reduced as part of a plea deal. A Watson Warning tells a defendant that if they drive impaired again and someone is killed, they can be charged with second-degree murder. Today, this warning is often skipped when charges are reduced, which weakens future prosecution. Braun’s Law would close that loophole.
SB 907 also increases penalties for repeat felony DUI offenders and strengthens consequences for DUI-related hit and run. It allows longer sentences when multiple victims are killed in one crash. Together, these changes make the law reflect the seriousness of impaired driving.
While AB 366 and SB 907 represent major steps forward, they still leave important enforcement gaps. Neither bill creates a centralized system to track ignition interlock compliance across counties, nor do they establish automatic penalties for drivers who fail to install or maintain their devices. Offenders can still drive vehicles without IIDs, and enforcement varies widely by county and judge. The bills also rely heavily on court discretion, rather than setting clear statewide standards. Without consistent monitoring, transparent reporting, and guaranteed consequences for noncompliance, even the strongest laws risk falling short of their life-saving potential.
AB 366 and SB 907 represent progress, but they must be implemented strongly and improved over time. Braun’s legacy is not only in the laws now being debated but also in the urgency to protect others before it is too late.
Image Credit: Park Barrett