BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 243| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 243 Author: Nava (D), et al Amended: 8/27/09 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/14/09 AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg, Wright SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 8/17/09 AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, Leno, Price, Walters, Wolk, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Oropeza, Runner, Wyland ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-12, 6/2/09 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Animal abuse: penalties SOURCE : Los Angeles District Attorneys Office DIGEST : This bill prohibits, with specified exceptions, a person who has been convicted of specified animal abuse crimes from owning or caring for an animal for a specified period of time. Senate Floor Amendments of 8/27/09 change the code section added by this bill to avoid chaptering problems with another bill. ANALYSIS : Existing law creates a misdemeanor punishable CONTINUED AB 243 Page 2 by a maximum of one year in the county jail and a fine of not more than $20,000 to maim, mutilate, torture, or wound a living animal or maliciously or intentionally kill an animal. (Penal Code Section 597 (a).) Existing law states that every person having charge or custody of an animal who overdrives; overloads; overworks; tortures; torments; deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter; cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills; or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven; overloaded; driven when overloaded; overworked; tortured; tormented; deprived of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter; or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate misdemeanor/felony and by a fine of not more than $20,000. (Penal Code Section 597 (b).) Existing law mandates that whoever carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits that animal to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and whenever any such person is taken into custody therefore by any officer, such officer must take charge of such vehicle and its contents, together with the horse or team attached to such vehicle, and deposit the same in some place of custody; and any necessary expense incurred for taking care of and keeping the same, is a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can be lawfully recovered; and if such expense, or any part thereof, remains unpaid, it may be recovered, by the person incurring the same, of the owner of such domestic animal, in an action therefore. (Penal Code Section 597a.) Existing law provides that any person who causes any animal to fight with another animal, or permits the same to be done on any property under his/her control, or aids or abets the fighting of any animal or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in the county jail; a by a fine not to exceed $1000; or both. (Penal Code Section 597b (a).) Existing law necessitates that any person who causes a cock AB 243 Page 3 to fight with another cock, or permits the same to be done on any property under his/her control, and any person who aids or abets the fighting of any cock or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year; by a fine not to exceed $5000; or by both. (Penal Code Section 597b (b).) Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to tie or attach or fasten any live animal to any machine or device propelled by any power for the purpose of causing such animal to be pursued by a dog or dogs. (Penal Code Section 597h.) Existing law directs that any person who owns, possesses, or trains any bird or animal with the intent that the cock or other bird shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting by his/her vendee or any other person is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months; by a fine not to exceed $1000; or by both. (Penal Code Section 597j.) Existing law states that every person who willfully abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code Section 597s.) Existing law provides that any person who does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, two or three years; by a fine not to exceed $50,000; or by both such fine and imprisonment: (1) owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; (2) for the amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other; and (3) permits any of the aforementioned acts in violation to be done on any premises under his/her charge or control, or aids or abets that act. (Penal Code Section 597.5.) Existing law declares that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code AB 243 Page 4 Section 597.1 (a).) Existing law provides that any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of the stray or abandoned animal and shall provide care and treatment for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in suitable condition to be returned to the owner. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health and safety of the animal or others the officer shall immediately seize the animal. The cost of caring for and treating the animal seized under this subdivision shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid. (Penal Code Section 597.1 (a).) Existing law sets forth the procedure for seizure and impoundment of an animal. (Penal Code Section 597.1 (f)-(j).) This bill provides that if the owner has satisfied the lien for caring for a seized animal prior to the final disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing agency or prosecuting attorney may file a petition in the criminal action requesting that the court order forfeiting the animal to the county or seizing agency prior to final disposition of the criminal charge. This bill provides that the court shall set a hearing on the forfeiture provision within 14 days of the filing of the petition. This bill provides the petitioner shall have the burden of establishing probable cause to believe that even in the event of acquittal, the owner cannot and will not provide the necessary care or that the owner will legally be permitted to retain any of the animals in question. If the court finds that probable cause exists, the court shall order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the petitioner. Existing law provides that upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of animal abuse, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall AB 243 Page 5 thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition. The court may also order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals of any kind and require the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his/her possession to a designated public entity for adoption or other lawful disposition or provide proof to the court that the person no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals. (Penal Code Section 597.1 (k).) This bill provides that if probation is granted, the court shall order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with, animals of any kind. This bill provides that regardless of whether probation is granted, the court shall require the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his/her possession to a designated public entity for adoption or other lawful disposition or provide proof to the court that the person no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals. This bill provides that in the event of the acquittal or final discharge without conviction of the arrested person, if any of the animals are still impounded because the animal or animals have not previously been deemed abandoned or the lien has been satisfied and the court has not previously ordered that any of the animals be forfeited, the court shall, on demand, direct the release of seized or impounded animals upon a showing of the following: (1) proof of ownership; (2) proof that all charges for the cost of seizure and care of the animals for the entire duration of the matter has been paid; (3) proof that the animals are physically fit and that the owner has demonstrated to the seizing agency or the court that the owner can and will provide the necessary care; and (4) proof that the owner can legally retain and possess all animals in question. This bill adds Section 597.9 to the Penal Code that provides that upon a conviction of a person for a misdemeanor violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section AB 243 Page 6 597, or of Section 597a, 597b, 597h, 597j, 597s, or 597.1, with specified exceptions for livestock owners, the court shall, in addition to any other sentence or penalty imposed, enter an order enjoining the person from owning, possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for any animal for a period of not less than five years. This bill provides that upon a conviction for a felony violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 597, or of Section 597b or 597.5, with specified exception for livestock owners, the court shall, in addition to any other sentence or penalty imposed, enter an order enjoining the person from owning, possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for any animal for a period of not less than 10 years. This bill provides that any person who is convicted of violating an order issued under this section is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $1000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. This bill provides that in cases of owners of livestock as defined in Section 14205 of the Food and Agriculture Codes section if the defendant files a petition with the court establishing that the imposition of the provisions of this section would result in substantial or undue economic hardship to the defendant's livelihood and that the defendant has the ability to properly care for all livestock in his/her possession. This bill provides that the petitioner shall serve a true copy of the petition upon the court and the prosecuting attorney 10 calendar days prior to the requested hearing. Upon petition from the defendant, the court shall set a hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 30 days after the filing of the petition. This bill provides that the defendant may petition the court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition. The petitioner shall serve a true copy of the petition upon the court and the prosecuting attorney 10 calendar days prior to the requested hearing. Upon a AB 243 Page 7 petition from the defendant, the court shall set a hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 30 days after the filing of the petition. At this hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of establishing probable cause to believe all of the following: (1) he/she does not present a danger to animals; (2) he/she has the ability to properly care for all animals in his/her possession; and (3) he/she has successfully completed all classes or counseling ordered by the court. This bill provides that if the petitioner has met his/her burden, the court may reduce the mandatory ownership prohibition and may order that the defendant comply with reasonable and unannounced inspections by animal control agencies or law enforcement. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund Restricts animal Minor, non-reimbursable enforcement costs Local ownership for individuals convicted of certain crimes Creates new Minor, non-reimbursable enforcement costs Local misdemeanor New court order ***Unknown; potentially significant Local/ option for forfeiture savings*** General* of ownership New requirements to***Negligible costs to verify proof*** General** AB 243 Page 8 Reclaim animals *The state currently reimburses counties for various animal control-related mandates. **Trial Courts Trust Fund SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/09) Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (source) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals California Animal Association California Federation for Animal Legislation City of Long Beach City of West Hollywood Paw PAC The Humane Society of the United States The Paw Project ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Currently, California Penal Code Section 597.1 (k) states that as a condition of probation, a court may order that a person convicted of certain animal related crimes and placed on probation be prohibited from owning, possessing, or having contact with animals. However, a court has no ability to issue a "no ownership" order for defendants convicted of felony animal cruelty offenses who are sentenced to state prison. The deficiencies in this law are numerous. First, prohibiting ownership of an animal for a certain period of time following a conviction of animal cruelty should be mandatory rather than optional. Defendants convicted of mistreating animals have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to care for animals properly and, therefore, should not be permitted to own animals for a defined period of time following their conviction. Second, as it stands, once a defendant is off probation, a judge has no jurisdiction or authority to order a defendant not to own, possess, or reside with animals, despite the fact that in some cases, it may be appropriate that a defendant be ordered not to possess animals for a period longer than the time he/she will be on probation. This bill allows a court to extend the "no ownership" AB 243 Page 9 prohibition beyond the probationary period. Third, a judge loses his/her jurisdiction - and all ability to order a defendant to do anything, including issuing a "no ownership" order - once a defendant is sent to prison. The sentencing scheme for felony animal cruelty is 16 months, two years, three years; an offender would serve half the amount of that time in prison. If a defendant's crime was serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, he/she would be prohibited from owning animals following release from custody. This bill gives a court the ability to issue a "no ownership" order to those defendants who have been sentenced to prison. Finally, California law allows for an optional "no ownership" prohibition only in cases where a defendant has been convicted of three particular crimes. There are several animal-related crimes currently not listed as candidates for the probationary "no contact" condition that clearly should be included, such as dog fighting and cock fighting. This bill applies to all appropriate and relevant animal-related crimes. ASSEMBLY FLOOR AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Yamada, Bass NOES: Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Conway, DeVore, Gilmore, Jeffries, Logue, Miller, Niello, Nielsen, Villines NO VOTE RECORDED: Block, Duvall, Garrick RJG:do 8/28/09 Senate Floor Analyses AB 243 Page 10 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****