The Brief

This is the third piece in CalMatters' series about how California lets dangerous drivers stay on the road. Read the series here. Sign up for CalMatters’ License to Kill newsletter to be notified when the next story comes out, and to get more behind-the-scenes information from CalMatters reporting.

The state of California gave Sylvester Conway every opportunity to kill.

He already had two DUI convictions by 2019, when the California Highway Patrol arrested him for driving drunk in Fresno County. The jail released him three days later. Conway didn’t show up to court and a judge issued a warrant for his arrest.

The cycle continued. In April 2021, prosecutors say he drove the wrong way on the highway with a blood alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit. Conway signed a citation for driving under the influence, promising that he’d show up to court. He didn’t.

The same thing happened in August that year — another DUI arrest, this time by Fresno police, and another warrant for skipping court.

All three Fresno DUI cases were still open, and all three warrants were out for Conway’s arrest, when police say he sped — drunk again — on his way to a casino in February 2022. This time, he lost control, flipped his Acura and killed his passenger, Khayriyyah Jones. He’s now facing murder charges in Madera County.

California’s DUI enforcement system is broken. The toll can be counted in bodies.

Alcohol-related roadway deaths in California have shot up by more than 50% in the past decade — an increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country, federal estimates show. More than 1,300 people die each year statewide in drunken collisions. Thousands more are injured. Again and again, repeat DUI offenders cause the crashes.

To understand why so many people are dying under the wheels of drunk and drugged drivers, CalMatters reviewed thousands of vehicular manslaughter and homicide cases prosecutors filed across the state since 2019. We also examined other states’ laws on intoxicated driving and sifted through decades of state and federal traffic safety data.

We found that California has some of the weakest DUI laws in the country, allowing repeat drunk and drugged drivers to stay on the road with little punishment. Here, drivers generally can’t be charged with a felony until their fourth DUI within 10 years, unless they injure someone. In some states, a second DUI can be a felony.

California too often fails to differentiate between drunk drivers who made a dangerous mistake but learn from it and those who refuse to stop endangering lives. It’s the missed opportunities to prevent tragedies that haunt the loved ones of the dead.

Sarah Villar, a pediatric physical therapist, was out walking the dog with her fiance in San Benito County when a drunk driver swerved off the road and killed her in 2021. The driver had been convicted of driving drunk in 2018, 2019 and again in 2020 — all misdemeanors — and served just a couple weeks behind bars before the fatal crash.

Villar’s parents buried her in her wedding dress.

“To the broken justice system that allowed this to happen — shame on you,” her father, Dave Villar, said in her eulogy. “If I walked out my front door today onto my porch and fired a shot into my neighborhood every day until I killed someone, when would I be a menace to society? When do I become a danger to my community? I say it’s after the first shot. Our system says it’s after the last.”

California also gives repeat drunk drivers their licenses back faster than other states. Here, you typically lose your license for three years after your third DUI, compared to eight years in New Jersey, 15 years in Nebraska and a permanent revocation in Connecticut. We found drivers with as many as six DUIs who were able to get a license in California.

Many drivers stay on the road for years even when the state does take their license — racking up tickets and even additional DUIs — with few consequences until they eventually kill.

When the worst does happen, there’s often little punishment. Drunk vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a “violent felony.” But in a twist of state law, a DUI that causes “great bodily injury” is — meaning that a drunk driver who breaks someone’s leg can face more time behind bars than if they’d killed them, prosecutors said.

Despite the mounting death toll, state leaders have shown little willingness to address the issue. A bill proposed in the state Legislature this year would have expanded the use of in-car breathalyzers, which research shows can significantly reduce drunk driving. Most other states already require the device for first-time DUI offenders. But lawmakers killed the provision after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles said it didn’t have the time or resources to carry it out.

Drunk and drugged driving is now so common in car-centric California that drivers routinely rack up four, five, six DUIs. One woman in Fresno just got her 16th.

The case files we reviewed are full of horrific reminders of this ubiquity. Like the story of Masako Saenz.

In 2000, Saenz was driving with her 5-year-old son, Manuel, to pick up an uncle in Stockton for the family’s Easter celebration when a drunk driver slammed his pickup truck into her tiny Toyota Tercel, killing the boy.

The driver had been convicted of his fourth DUI two months before. He likely would have been behind bars that day, but San Joaquin Superior Court Judge John Cruikshank was letting him finish a rehab program before reporting to jail.

The case made national news when Saenz broke down during the arraignment. “Murderer! Murderer! You killed my son!” she screamed and had to be removed from the courtroom.

She told a Sacramento Bee reporter that people would marvel at how well she seemed to be doing. “But they have no idea,” she said. “They have no idea. Sometimes even now I wonder if I can go on.”

First: Masako Saenz sits on her son Manuel's bed on Aug. 15, 2000. Manuel was 5 years old when he was killed by a drunk driver earlier that year. Last: A framed photo and the remains of Manuel, on the mantel above a fireplace on Aug. 15, 2000.

(

Michael A. Jones

/

Sacramento Bee via ZUMA Press

)

A framed photo and the remains of Masako Saenz son, Manuel, on the mantel above a fire place on Aug. 15, 2000. Photo by Michael A. Jones, Sacramento Bee via ZUMA Press

(

ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy Stock P/Alamy Stock Photo

/

https://www.alamy.com

)

In the years after, her life unraveled, police and court records show. Saenz became homeless, sleeping along Sacramento roadways.

She appears to have started posting to an online memorial website for her son — simple messages of love and grief sent into the void. “He will always be with me,” reads the last post from January 2022.

Three months later, a man with a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit — whose license was suspended after a string of speeding tickets — gunned his car, lost control and careened into an encampment just miles from the state Capitol. A witness found her body wrapped in a tent.

Mother and son were killed two decades apart by drunk drivers who never should have been on the road.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

‘It’s accepted in society until the worst happens’

Once upon a time, California showed that you can reduce drunk driving deaths simply by trying.

Two decades before Saenz’s son was killed, another Sacramento mother’s unfathomable loss galvanized the state and country. In 1980, Candace Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter was walking to a church carnival when a drunk driver — out of jail days after what was reportedly his fourth DUI arrest — slammed into her so hard she flew out of her shoes, landing 125 feet away.

In response, Lightner helped found Mothers Against Drunk Driving, ushering in the modern anti-DUI movement. California was at the forefront, forming a special task force in 1980. State leaders enacted a slate of new laws, setting a legal limit for blood alcohol content and increasing DUI penalties. In 1982, Gov. Jerry Brown touted the reforms as the “toughest package of legislation in the Nation against driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

In the decades that followed, California cut alcohol-related roadway fatalities by more than half.

Now, the state’s headed backward. And as deaths have increased, law enforcement has done less: DUI arrests statewide dropped from nearly 200,000 in 2010 to 100,000 in 2020.

The death of Masako Saenz launched no new movements. Her killing was briefly mentioned in a local news roundup of homeless deaths from 2022. But that was about it. There wasn’t a picture of her on the site, just a stock photo of a burning candle — a placeholder for a life lost.

The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office filed a lesser manslaughter charge against the driver, Puentis Currie Jr., instead of the more serious charge police recommended. Currie got three months behind bars, then a few months with a monitoring bracelet so he could keep going to college.

Prosecutors asked Sacramento County Superior Court Judge John P. Winn to sentence Currie to at least community service instead of letting him “sit at home and play video games,” according to a court transcript. But Winn declined, saying he was leaving the department and didn’t want to saddle his replacement with decisions regarding the details of such an order.

Just this past May, police caught Currie driving on a suspended license again after pulling him over for a busted headlight, court records show. That could have meant more jail time. Instead, he got a ticket.

Currie said he needs to drive to and from work and was driving home from a shift when he got the recent citation. Now 25, he hopes talking about his case might keep other kids from driving while intoxicated.

He said that the night he killed Masako Saenz, he had gone out to celebrate his cousin’s birthday. He did tequila shots and took ecstasy and remembers getting in the car but nothing else until after the crash.

One of his attorneys told him about Saenz’s son. The weight of what he’d done hit him.

He said he goes back to the scene of the crash every April.

“I put flowers there just to show, like —” he said, breaking down in tears, “show that I care, or show her that I’m truly sorry.”

He said it’s too easy to ignore the risk of driving under the influence. Lawyers, doctors, everyone gets DUIs.

“I think it’s accepted in society until the worst happens,” he said.

‘It is literally just a matter of time before they kill’

David Alvarado already had three prior DUIs when a CHP officer saw him almost hit another car in January 2019. He admitted he’d been drinking Coors Light at a friend’s house.

But prosecutors couldn’t charge Alvarado with a felony, which typically brings with it more serious penalties and oversight. His previous DUIs — from 1997, and two from 2006 — essentially didn’t count. In California, a DUI drops off your record after 10 years. He was just another misdemeanor drunk driver in a state with more than 100,000 of them that year.

The Madera County District Attorney’s Office hadn’t even filed criminal charges yet when, 10 months later, law enforcement stopped him again for driving drunk.

Over the next two years, they’d pull him over twice more, citing him once for driving without a valid license and another time for drunk driving, court records show.

That’s three DUI arrests and a ticket in less than three years.

His punishment: probation. The judge ordered him to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet for 129 days.

Less than a year after his conviction, he was driving a F-250 pickup truck when he slammed into a car stopped at a red light, killing Mary and Paul Hardin, a Texas couple visiting on a church mission trip. Prosecutors say Alvarado was drunk. He is now facing murder charges in Fresno County.

Benjamin Hardin is the second oldest of the victims’ 11 children. He said his parents touched so many lives with their kindness and love. When the family cleaned out the couple’s California apartment after the crash, he said they found a fresh baked loaf of bread with someone’s name on it that their mother must have intended to deliver.

“I know that my parents would want me and my siblings to forgive him,” Hardin said. “My parents would not want me to carry hate in my heart for him.”

Still, he said he was stunned to learn that someone could get that many DUIs.

“It really does feel like it is literally just a matter of time before they kill someone — or in my family’s case, two someones,” he said.

The Victims of Drunk Drivers Memorial at Pacific View Mortuary and Memorial Park in Corona del Mar, on Sept. 24, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

State data shows repeat drunk driving is not an aberration. A recent DMV analysis tracked drivers who got a DUI in 2005. More than a quarter got another DUI over the next 15 years. Of the drivers for whom the 2005 arrest was at least their third DUI, nearly 40% went on to get yet another.

San Benito District Attorney Joel Buckingham said he views a third DUI as a crucial moment to intervene, aiming for drivers to serve at least 60 days in jail to “really kind of wake them up.”

But he also tries to take matters into his own hands at home. When he teaches his kids to drive, he tells them to “assume everyone is trying to kill you,” he said.

It’s the lack of consequences or meaningful intervention over years that make so many of the cases read like tragedy foretold.

William Curtis was convicted of driving while intoxicated in May 2012.

Over the next several years, he would be involved in two collisions, receive four traffic tickets and get another DUI, all while his license was supposed to be suspended, Sacramento County court records show.

For the second DUI, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Police filed the citations in traffic court rather than sending them to the DA’s office for criminal prosecution. As a result, he got off with little more than a fine for refusing to stay off the road.

And he continued to drive until one night in November 2020, when he sped down Highway 99 drunk and crashed into the back of a stalled car. That vehicle burst into flames. Emergency personnel later found the charred remains of Dominique Howard trapped inside the burned vehicle.

Law enforcement later let him call his mother. Court records reveal what they heard Curtis say:

“I killed someone. I’m going away. I’m sorry, mom. Tell my kids I love them.”

‘You just saved a family of four’

Ryan Nazaroff became a police officer because of the worst day — or maybe one of the two worst days — of his life. He was just 16 in February 2008, with a bunch of friends going from party to party on the roads that run between the farms outside Fresno. There was another car of kids in front of him, Nazaroff said.

He remembers seeing the vehicle in front swerve. It hit the shoulder, overcorrected to the left and started to roll. His 14-year-old brother and another passenger were ejected.

Nazaroff found his brother laying on the dirt shoulder, dead.

In the horror of the moment, he remembers the polite professionalism of the CHP officers who investigated the crash. Nazaroff decided then that he wanted to do that for other people in their worst moments and try to help prevent the types of tragedies his family endured. He eventually joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The first chance Nazaroff got as a young deputy, he took an assignment working traffic patrol on the graveyard shift, cruising alone along the dark roads of Norwalk and La Mirada, 20 miles southeast of downtown LA, looking for drunk drivers and responding to crashes. Mothers Against Drunk Driving gave him awards for his DUI arrests.

“You try and remind yourself, every DUI arrest you make, you just saved a family of four,” he said.

Ryan Nazaroff in Rowland Heights, on Sept. 26, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

for CalMatters

)

Nazaroff was up for a promotion in April 2022 when he pulled into the station garage and his phone buzzed. He picked up. A Fresno County sheriff’s deputy was at his mom’s house.

It had happened again.

A drunk driver blew a stop sign and smashed into the dump truck his father was driving. Jeffrey Nazaroff was barely a block from where he was supposed to park his truck, finish his shift and go home. Instead, Ryan’s dad became one of the more than 1,400 people killed in an alcohol-related crash in California that year, federal estimates show.

Ryan Nazaroff called off of work and went home. He sat up all night with his wife before driving to be with his family the next day.

The woman who killed his dad was not a first-time drunk driver. Zdeineb Juarez Calderon was arrested two months before the fatal crash for allegedly driving drunk and crashing into a sign post. He thought that should be enough to charge her with murder.

To sustain a murder charge, prosecutors need to be able to prove that the person knew the danger and took the risk anyway. That typically means showing the defendant received a formal warning about the dangers of intoxicated driving, called a Watson advisement. Judges will typically read a boilerplate warning into the court record when someone is convicted of a DUI or have them sign a form.

But Juarez Calderon wasn’t convicted of anything yet for the earlier crash, so there was no Watson warning in the court records. Prosecutors told him the best they could charge Juarez Calderon with was vehicular manslaughter, Nazaroff said.

He was further frustrated to learn that because vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a “violent” felony, the repeat drunk driver who killed his dad will likely serve only a small fraction of her 10-year sentence in prison.

That’s because the state requires people convicted of a violent felony to serve more of their time in prison. In general, someone convicted of a violent felony will serve two-thirds of their sentence behind bars while for a lesser felony it’s as little as a third, said Steve Ueltzen, a Fresno County senior deputy district attorney.

“It’s a tough conversation to have with victims,” he said.

Juarez Calderon was sentenced to prison in January 2024. Records show that with the time she already spent in jail pretrial, she’s eligible for release this December.

Ryan Nazaroff displays childhood photos on his phone. The photo on the left shows his father, Jeffrey Nazaroff, alongside Ryan and his younger brother, Thomas Nazaroff. The photo on the right shows his father with Thomas. Rowland Heights, Sept. 26, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

for CalMatters

)

‘It’s an abuse of authority and power’

California judges and lawmakers have often refused to require one of the few technological solutions most other states use to at least try to cut down on repeat drunk drivers.

Ignition interlock devices, known as IIDs, are those in-car breathalyzers that a driver needs to blow into for the vehicle to start. The technology has been around since the 1960s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says they can decrease repeat drunk driving offenses as much as 70% while in use. In California, the devices prevented more than 30,500 attempts to drive under the influence in 2023 alone, state legislative reports say.

But unlike most states, California doesn’t require first-time drunk drivers to use the devices. MADD gave us an “F” on a 2022 national report card of states’ ignition interlock laws.

More than a decade ago, state Sen. Jerry Hill tried to require the devices for all DUI offenders in honor of a friend killed by a drunk driver. The Bay Area Democrat, now retired, grew dismayed by what he deemed a “soft approach” to DUIs, where legislators and committee consultants worry more about inconveniencing drivers than preventing deaths.

Hill ultimately had to settle for a 2016 bill that required the in-car breathalyzers for repeat DUI offenders.

But records suggest even that law isn’t being followed. Judges in more than a dozen counties ordered the breathalyzers for less than 10% of drivers convicted of a second DUI, according to a 2023 DMV report. In Los Angeles, judges made such orders for just 0.5% of the county’s thousands of second-time DUI offenders, according to the report.

“They should be ashamed of themselves, because how many deaths have they caused?” Hill said. “It’s an abuse of authority and power.”

LA County Superior Court spokesman Rob Oftring did not directly respond to detailed questions about how often the court’s judges order the breathalyzers, instead saying they “regularly submit abstracts of conviction” to the DMV.

The DMV hasn’t issued new figures showing the use of the devices in more recent years. Asked for comment, the agency responded via email saying: “The DMV follows the laws established by the Legislature in the California Vehicle Code. The department operates within those laws.”

Even drivers who have killed someone in recent years can get on the road without the device. We identified about 130 drivers who were convicted for a fatal DUI since 2019 who have already gotten their licenses back from the state. Alcohol was a factor in the vast majority of the cases. And although some appear to have had a short requirement to use an in-car breathalyzer, fewer than 20 are currently limited to driving vehicles with an ignition interlock device installed, their DMV records show.

Elias Mack thinks that’s a mistake.

Mack said he wasn’t much of a drinker, certainly not an alcoholic, when he drove drunk in early 2023 and caused the crash that killed Aurora Morris, his high school sweetheart.

“I was just young,” said Mack, who’s now 25.

He was convicted of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and at his sentencing, the judge ordered Mack’s license be revoked for three years. But under state law, the DMV is allowed to ignore such orders if the length of revocation is longer than what the statutes require. The agency gave Mack his license back little more than a year after his conviction and with no requirement that he install a breathalyzer, he said.

“I was trying to get my life back on track. I just wanted to do better and make her proud,” he said, adding that he needed to drive for work.

But the grief was almost too much. “To just live with that every day eats you alive,” Mack said.

He would often drive to see her memorial. “The only thing that’s making me feel good is just going to talk to her,” Mack said. But he was also drinking as a way to cope.

On one of those trips, just a few months after he got his license back, police stopped him. He got another DUI.

Mack said he’s sober now and hopes his story can help other people. He wishes the court had ordered him to have a breathalyzer after his manslaughter conviction.

It makes sense the devices would be mandatory, especially after a case like his, and for as long as possible, he added.

“It’s going to save somebody’s life.”

‘You have an opportunity to stop this’

Melanie Sandoval was still a teenager in 1989 when she was convicted in Madera County for driving drunk.

She got her second DUI a couple years later, and the state took her license.

She got her third a few years after that. And then her fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th.

It still didn’t keep her from driving drunk.

Kevin Bohnstedt saw the headlights coming toward him. The next thing he remembers, he was trapped in his seat with the airbags deployed and a woman outside rapping on the window.

Police found a pint of vodka in Sandoval’s car, said Ueltzen, who was the prosecutor in the case. It was her 16th DUI.

Bohnstedt, who spent 21 years flying jets off aircraft carriers as a naval aviator, said for months afterward he’d close his eyes and see the headlights coming for him. It took a while before he felt comfortable driving at night.

Kevin Bohnstedt stands in front of his home in central Fresno on Oct. 7, 2025. Bohnstedt was involved in a head-on collision with a driver who was later charged with their 16th DUI.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

Sandoval pleaded no contest to felony DUI and went to rehab. At a sentencing hearing in October 2024, Ueltzen implored Superior Court Judge Charles Lee to also send Sandoval to prison.

In a sharp back and forth, the judge and the prosecutor argued the weaknesses in the system.

Lee noted that if he sentenced her to four years, she would be out in two at most.

“What changes? She has been to prison so many times on so many different DUIs,” Lee said. “We warehouse her for a number of months. She comes out. She is still an addict. How is public safety addressed by a prison commitment here when we know she has gone to prison over and over and over again on DUIs?”

Ueltzen said that at least she could be forced to stay sober for a while.

“The public safety is addressed by the fact that while this defendant is in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, she is not behind the wheel of a car,” he said.

Lee was unmoved. For driving head on into another vehicle in what was her 16th DUI, the judge granted Sandoval probation with no additional time behind bars.

Her own attorney, who asked the court to send her to rehab instead of prison, said in an interview that there was “no accountability” in state law for repeat DUI offenders.

“If you have 16 DUIs, you likely should be doing 20 years in prison,” Marc Kapetan said.

Sandoval went on to violate the terms of her supervised release by showing up drunk to a probation appointment.

Just this summer a different judge ordered her to serve out the remainder of her four-year sentence in prison. With credit for the time she was in rehab, plus the time she spent in jail pretrial, plus the credit the state gives you just for behaving yourself behind bars, she should be out next year.

Bohnstedt said he recognizes the government can only do so much to stop people from making bad decisions and drivers have a responsibility for their own actions. But he said he was floored the court tried to let her off with mere probation and is baffled California can’t either get people like Sandoval the help they need or keep them from endangering the public.

“The biggest concern I have is the next time that it happens, there could be kids in the car. And she could kill them,” he said. “Or she could run people down. Any number of different horrific things could happen. And it could lead to somebody dying.”

If that happens, he said the state — lawmakers, law enforcement, the courts — will have blood on its hands.

“You have an opportunity to stop this.”

We attempted to reach every driver named in this story or their attorneys — oftentimes both. If a person or their attorney isn’t quoted, we were unable to reach them or they declined to comment.

Court research by Robert Lewis, Lauren Hepler, Anat Rubin, Sergio Olmos, Cayla Mihalovich, Ese Olumhense, Ko Bragg, Andrew Donohue and Jenna Peterson. 

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

It’s been more than four decades yet Rhonda Campbell’s voice still quavered as she stood before a row of television cameras recalling the day in 1981 when a repeat drunk driver killed her 12-year-old sister. She remembers her father crying as he told her what happened, still hears her mother’s scream when the coffin lid closed.

“For our family, 45 years means 45 years of missed birthdays, missed holidays and that empty chair at our table for every holiday gathering. Grief does not fade, it just becomes part of who you are,” Campbell, victim services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving California, said Thursday at a press conference.

Campbell joined other victim relatives, lawmakers, advocates, a police chief and a trauma surgeon on a Capitol building stage, all there to build momentum for what’s shaping up to be the biggest legislative effort to address dangerous driving in a generation.

Next to them as they spoke was a table filled with photos of people killed on California’s roads and one old pair of gym shoes belonging to Campbell’s sister.

“Behind every statistic that you will hear today, someone is loved and irreplaceable,” she said.

A bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers has so far introduced 10 bills this year as part of an unprecedented legislative package aimed at confronting California’s permissive roadway safety laws. Many of the proposals directly address issues CalMatters uncovered as part of the ongoing License to Kill series, which revealed how the state has routinely allowed dangerous drivers to stay on the road as its roadway death toll has skyrocketed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, called the package of bills “California’s largest and most significant anti-drunk driving and anti-DUI push in over two decades.”

“This crisis is an urgent call to action,” she said.

Her colleague on the other side of the aisle, Assemblymember Tom Lackey of Palmdale, said “it’s time.”

“We are failing, folks, and I’m so heartened by this big coalition of people. I’ve waited 12 years for this,” he said, referring to his time in the legislature after decades as a CHP officer.

Lawmakers said to expect a few more bills next week before the deadline to propose new legislation. Several Republican legislators also asked for a formal audit into DMV records and Democrats plan to propose a separate audit of how the state spends its traffic safety funds.

At Thursday’s event, lawmaker after lawmaker stepped to the podium to discuss their proposals and call on colleagues to join them in doing something about traffic deaths. They were often followed by grieving parents, there to talk about unfathomable loss.

For one father, Anatoly Varfolomeev, it was almost too much. He struggled to address the audience, at one point gripping the podium and lowering his head, overcome with emotion before gathering the strength to continue.

Varfolomeev said he’d planned to cite some of the statistics regarding motor vehicle fatalities but it was clear listening to the speakers that they were well known.

“That means that this legislative initiative is long-time overdue,” Varfolomeev said.

His daughter and her childhood friend, both 19, were killed in November 2021 by a drunk driver going more than 100 miles per hour, Varfolomeev said. The driver served just three and a half years behind bars, Varfolomeev said.

As we reported last year, vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a violent felony in California, meaning drivers who kill can serve only a fraction of their sentence behind bars.

“So this is not a violent crime,” he said, holding up a picture of the mangled, charred remains of a car. “If this is not a violent crime what is?”

One of the bills in the package would add vehicular manslaughter to the state’s list of violent felonies.

A mom, Kellie Montalvo, was there to support the change and the rest of the bill package. Her son Benjamin Montalvo had just turned 21 and was riding his bike when a woman with prior reckless crashes ran him over and fled the scene.

The woman who killed Benjamin – “Bean Dip” as his family affectionately called him – is due to be released from prison as early as this weekend. She called on Governor Newsom to do something.

“Please come out now publicly and support these bills. You have an opportunity to lead the charge in supporting victims,” she said. “His name was ‘Bean Dip’, and he mattered.”

Together, the bills are aimed at strengthening the state’s enforcement system and keeping many reckless drivers from behind the wheel for years longer. The package would bring the state more in line with much of the country, particularly when it comes to handling drunk and drugged drivers.

California saw a more than 50% spike in DUI-related deaths over the most recent 10 years for which federal estimates were available, an increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country. As our investigation has shown, California currently has some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.

“Safer roads are not a partisan or political issue. They are the basic responsibility we owe to every family that travels upon our roadways,” said Alex Gammelgard, past president of the California Police Chiefs Association.

Yet, even as the number of deaths on our roads soared, California leaders have previously failed to confront these issues.

Many of the bills are sure to face significant challenges in the months to come. Financial concerns, for example, have helped doom previous efforts to pass expanded use of the in-car breathalyzers known as ignition interlock devices. A proposal to bring California in line with much of the rest of the nation is back on the table as part of the current package. Increasing criminal penalties could also be a tough sell in a legislature that’s been so focused in recent years on criminal justice reforms and alternatives to incarceration.

It was a challenge some on the stage alluded to.

“I want to align myself with the idea of compassion. I think California has done a lot to try to be on the compassionate side of the justice system,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat from San Luis Obispo.

“But I think, in this moment,” she added, “we have tragically failed.”

Lawmakers have a little more than a week before the deadline to introduce new legislation for the session.

The bills highlighted at Thursday’s press conference would:

Make vehicular manslaughter a violent felony and increase DUI penalties

(Introduced by Senator Bob Archuleta, a Democrat from Norwalk.)

Issue: Vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a “violent” felony under state law, our reporting showed, allowing people convicted of the crime to serve only a fraction of their time behind bars.

Proposed changes: This bill would add vehicular manslaughter with “gross negligence” to the list of violent felonies. It would also add prison time for crashes with multiple victims and drivers with a prior felony DUI within 10 years. Finally, the bill would stiffen penalties for hit-and-run collisions where the driver had a prior DUI and expand so-called “Watson advisements” that make it easier to charge repeat DUI offenders with murder if they kill someone.

Close the DMV point loophole for drivers who get diversion after a deadly crash

(Introduced by Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City.)

Issue: Recent criminal justice reform laws made it easier for judges to wipe misdemeanor convictions — including vehicular manslaughter — from criminal records. In practice, that means some California drivers can get points added to their license for speeding, but not for killing someone, our reporting has shown.

Proposed change: Ensure the DMV adds points to a drivers license in vehicular manslaughter cases where a driver gets off with misdemeanor diversion instead of a criminal conviction.

Ensure deadly drivers don’t get their licenses back as soon as they get out of prison

(Wilson plans to introduce.)

Issue: License suspensions or revocations often start at the time of a conviction and can actually end before someone is released from prison.

Proposed change: Require license suspensions and revocations to start when a driver is released from incarceration as opposed to at the time of a conviction, potentially keeping licenses away from dangerous drivers for years longer than the current law.

Increase DMV points for fatal crashes 

(Introduced by Assemblymembers Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, and Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine.)

Issue: California drivers currently get the same number of points added to their license for killing someone as they do for non-injury DUIs and hit-and-run collisions.

Proposed change: Increase the number of points a vehicular manslaughter conviction adds to a driver’s license from the current two points to three.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony on second offense 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: It currently takes four DUIs within 10 years to be charged with a felony in California. Many other states allow prosecutors to charge a felony after two or three offenses.

Proposed change: This would allow prosecutors to charge a second DUI offense within 10 years as a felony.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony after third offense, increase repeat DUI penalties

(Introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank)

Issue: Habitual repeat DUI offenders often face few added penalties.

Proposed change: Similar to Lackey’s bill, Schultz’s would let prosecutors charge a driver with a felony for their third DUI in 10 years. Increase the time some repeat DUI offenders need to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car and the amount of time their driving privileges are revoked.

Revoke the licenses of repeat DUI offenders for longer 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: California takes away repeat DUI offenders’ driving privileges for three years, less time than many other places. Some other states revoke licenses for up to 15 years, or even issue lifetime bans.

Proposed change: Increase the amount of time the DMV can revoke the driving privileges of someone who gets a third DUI to eight years.

Bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol

(Introduced by Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democrat from Stockton.)

Issue: California’s current system allows many repeat DUI offenders to stay on the road with few safeguards.

Proposed change: Let judges essentially bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol by adding a “NO ALCOHOL SALE” sticker to their driver’s licenses, similar to a law recently enacted in Utah. A “Severe DUI” would be defined as an offense with a blood-alcohol level at least twice as high as the legal limit , conviction for two DUIs within three years, or a DUI causing great bodily injury, death, or major property damage.

Mandate in-car breathalyzers for all DUI offenders

(Introduced by Petrie-Norris)

Issue: Most states already require all DUI offenders to install an in-car breathalyzer. California does not. State law currently requires the devices, which a driver must blow into for their car to start, for people convicted of two or more DUIs, or a DUI that results in injury.

Proposed change: Require the breathalyzers for all DUI offenders. (A nearly identical measure was gutted late in the legislative process last year after the DMV said it did not have the technology or funding to implement the changes.)

Expand law enforcement DUI training

(Introduced by Assemblymember Juan Alanis, a Republican from Modesto.)

Issue: Local law enforcement training varies widely in California, meaning that officers aren’t always trained in how to test for drunk and drugged driving.

Proposed change: Increase DUI training for police officers who work traffic enforcement to ensure they are proficient in areas like sobriety testing and report writing.

One year after taking charge of the nation’s health department, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hasn’t held true to many of the promises he made while appealing to U.S. senators concerned about the longtime anti-vaccine activist’s plans for the nation’s care.

Kennedy squeaked through a narrow Senate vote to be confirmed as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, only after making a number of public and private guarantees about how he would handle vaccine funding and recommendations as secretary.

Here’s a look at some of the promises Kennedy made during his confirmation process.

The childhood vaccine schedule

In two hearings in January 2025, Kennedy repeatedly assured senators that he supported childhood vaccines, noting that all his children were vaccinated.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Kennedy about the money he’s made in the private sector from lawsuits against vaccine makers and accused him of planning to profit from potential future policies making it easier to sue.

“Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it,” Warren said during the Senate Finance Committee hearing. “Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in.”

Warren’s statement prompted an assurance by Kennedy.

“Senator, I support vaccines,” he said. “I support the childhood schedule. I will do that.”

Days later, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, declared Kennedy had pledged to maintain existing vaccine recommendations if confirmed. Cassidy, a physician specializing in liver diseases and a vocal supporter of vaccination, had questioned Kennedy sharply in a hearing about his views on shots.

“If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendations without changes,” Cassidy said during a speech on the Senate floor explaining his vote for Kennedy.

A few months after he was confirmed, Kennedy fired all the incumbent members of the vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, and appointed new members, including several who, like him, oppose some vaccines. The panel’s recommendations soon changed drastically.

Last month, the CDC removed its universal recommendations for children to receive seven immunizations, those protecting against respiratory syncytial virus, meningococcal disease, flu, covid, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and rotavirus. The move followed a memorandum from the White House calling on the CDC to cull the schedule.

Now, those vaccines, which researchers estimate have prevented thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses, are recommended by the CDC only for children at high-risk of serious illness or after consultation between doctors and parents.

In response to questions about Kennedy’s actions on vaccines over the past year, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the secretary “continues to follow through on his commitments” to Cassidy.

“As part of those commitments, HHS accepted Chairman Cassidy’s numerous recommendations for key roles at the agency, retained particular language on the CDC website, and adopted ACIP recommendations,” Nixon added. “Secretary Kennedy talks to the chairman at a regular clip.”

Cassidy and his office have repeatedly rebuffed questions about whether Kennedy, since becoming secretary, has broken the commitments he made to the senator.

Vaccine funding axed

Weeks after Kennedy took over the federal health department, the CDC pulled back $11 billion in covid-era grants that local health departments were using to fund vaccination programs, among other initiatives.

That happened after Kennedy pledged during his confirmation hearings not to undermine vaccine funding.

Kennedy replied “Yes” when Cassidy asked him directly: “Do you commit that you will not work to impound, divert, or otherwise reduce any funding appropriated by Congress for the purpose of vaccination programs?”

A federal judge later ordered HHS to distribute the money.

The National Institutes of Health, part of HHS, also yanked dozens of research grants supporting studies of vaccine hesitancy last year. Kennedy, meanwhile, ordered the cancellation of a half-billion dollars’ worth of mRNA vaccine research in August.

A discredited theory about autism

Cassidy said in his floor speech that he received a guarantee from Kennedy that the CDC’s website would not remove statements explaining that vaccines do not cause autism.

Technically, Kennedy kept his promise not to remove the statements. The website still says that vaccines do not cause autism.

But late last year, new statements sprung up on the same webpage, baselessly casting doubt on vaccine safety. “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” the page on autism now misleadingly reads.

The webpage also states that the public has largely ignored studies showing vaccines do cause autism.

That is false. Over decades of research, scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

A controversial 1998 study that captured global attention did link the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism. It was retracted for being fraudulent — though not until a decade after it was published, during which there were sharp declines in U.S. vaccination rates.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 12, 2026.

Valentine’s Day is here, and in Highland Park, that means Delicias Bakery & Some is transforming from a family-owned panadería into an intimate evening restaurant for the weekend.

This is the second year Delicias will host a Valentine’s event as part of its “Moodnight” series.

“Our customers are family, and we wanted to create a safe, welcoming place for people to gather at night, unwind, and enjoy fellowship, great food and music,” Matthew Rivera, an event organizer and Delicias’ business partner, told The LA Local.

Delicias has been operating since 1991, offering Mexican recipes from pan dulce and breakfast burritos to aguas frescas and coffee.

It is run by sisters Emily and Roxanne Sanchez. Delicias began hosting evening events in partnership with FAMI Goods in 2025.

“Moodnight” transforms the bakery into a social hub for the Northeast Los Angeles community.

The first event is Friday, Feb. 13, for Galentine’s Day, when Delicias will host “Lovers x Friends,” an after-hours dinner featuring house-made pizzas for two and music inspired by Outkast’s The Love Below.

Rivera called it “a celebratory event for friendship, filled with high energy and an upbeat atmosphere.”

On Saturday, Feb. 14, Delicias is splitting Valentine’s Day into two events.

During the day, there will be bouquets and portraits, along with brunch featuring chilaquiles and raspberry compote waffles.

At night, the bakery will offer a candlelit dinner with specialty pizzas and a café de olla brownie sundae for dessert.

“Moodnight transitions into a more intimate, sultry atmosphere with R&B jams playing throughout the night,” Anisha Sisodia, Delicias’ creative director said.

Heart-shaped conchas will also be available for takeout over the weekend. “[It’s] a glimpse of what Moodnight will continue to bring to the community throughout the year,” Sisodia added.

Looking for more last-minute plans for Valentine’s weekend? Here’s a list of the 11 best V-Day events happening in Los Angeles.

A poster for Valentine’s Day outside Delicias in Highland Park.

(

Cristabell Fierros

/

The LA Local

)

No. 11: Galentine’s Edition at Wallflower Market

No. 10: Bloodline Group Show at Superchief Gallery

No. 9: Pucca x Garu Valentine’s at Little Tokyo Galleria

No. 8: V-Day Live Band Karaoke at Alana’s Coffee

No. 7: Frogtown Heart Walk Love + Art

No. 6: I Love Everything East LA Festival

No. 5: Valentine’s Singles Party at El Condor

No. 4: Galentine’s Day at Common Space

No. 3: Love Notes at Gloria Molina Grand Park

No. 2: Valentine’s Brunch at Homegirl Cafe

No. 1: Moodnight at Delicias