BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 2243 (Smyth) As Amended May 6, 2010 Hearing Date: June 15, 2010 Fiscal: No Urgency: No TW:jd SUBJECT Civil Law: Search and Rescue Dogs DESCRIPTION Existing law provides protection for peace officers and firefighters of search and rescue canine units against discrimination by lodging and eating establishments and public transportation. This bill, sponsored by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), would extend this protection to a handler of a search and rescue dog. This bill also would provide that peace officers, firefighters, and handlers of search and rescue dogs shall not be denied services from these businesses based on the presence of the search and rescue dog. This bill would extend these protections to protection to non-declared emergency aid and training situations. BACKGROUND Fire and law enforcement agencies deploy dogs and their human handlers outside of their jurisdictions to assist with the search and rescue of people who are buried under debris, trapped in mines, lost in the wilderness, drowned in waterways, or otherwise missing. When these canines and their handlers are deployed, they often travel long distances and must stay in hotels and other lodging. Often these highly trained canines cannot be left alone or in vehicles because of high temperatures or other conditions, and must accompany their handlers into restaurants or other public buildings. Currently, existing law only provides special privileges for these dogs when there is a declared disaster and the dogs are in the presence of peace (more) AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 2 of ? officers and firefighters. In many circumstances, a disaster has not been declared but the dogs are requested through the state's mutual aid system, which is managed by Cal EMA. A majority of these canines are handled by volunteers and not actual employees of the fire or law enforcement agencies they serve. Members of these volunteer search and rescue (SAR) groups are registered as Disaster Service Workers under state law and must meet strict standards established by Cal EMA. When requested by local jurisdictions, these SAR volunteers are dispatched by Cal EMA to support mutual aid operations in a city or county. Teams are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to respond to local, state, and federal agencies. In 2008, the Legislature acted to protect a peace officer or firefighter with a trained service dog from discrimination by lodging and eating establishments, and public transportation, during a declared emergency. (AB 2131 (Niello, Ch. 226, Stats. 2008).) This bill would extend this protection to handlers of search and rescue dogs and provide that peace officers, firefighters, and handlers with search and rescue dogs shall not be denied service by lodging and eating establishments or public transportation on the basis of the presence of the search and rescue dog. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law provides that a peace officer or firefighter assigned to a canine unit, who is assigned to duty away from his or her home jurisdiction because of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, and in the course and scope of his or her official duties, may not be discriminated against in hotels, lodging establishments, eating establishments, or public transportation by being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the peace officer's or firefighter's dog. (Civ. Code Sec. 54.25(a)(1).) Existing law further provides the peace officer's law enforcement agency or the firefighter's fire agency is liable for any damages to the premises or facilities caused by the peace officer's or firefighter's dog. (Civ. Code Sec. 54.25(a)(1).) Existing law states that any person, firm, association, or corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, association, or corporation that prevents a peace officer or a firefighter AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 3 of ? assigned to a canine unit and his or her dog from exercising, or interferes in the exercise of, the rights specified in this section is subject to a civil fine not exceeding $1,000. (Civ. Code Sec. 54.25(b).) This bill prohibits discrimination against the handler of a search and rescue dog assigned to duty away from his or her home jurisdiction because of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, or an official mutual aid request or training, and in the course and scope of his or her duties in hotels, lodging establishments, eating establishments, or public transportation by being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the dog. This bill expands the circumstances for the prohibition of discrimination to include when the peace officer, firefighter, or handler is away from his or her home jurisdiction because of an official mutual aid request or training in addition to declared emergencies. This bill provides that peace officers and firefighters assigned to a canine unit, or handlers of a search and rescue dog shall not be denied service based on the presence of the dog. This bill requires the handler, in addition to the peace officer's law enforcement agency or the firefighter's fire agency, to be liable for any damages to the premises or facilities caused by the search and rescue dog. This bill defines "handler of a search and rescue dog" to mean a person in possession of a dog that is in training to become registered and approved as a search and rescue dog, or that is currently registered and approved for tasks, including, but not limited to, locating missing persons, discovering controlled substances, explosives, or cadavers, or locating victims in collapsed structures, and assisting with peace officer on-command searches for suspects and victims at crime scenes. This bill defines "search and rescue dog" to mean a dog that has been trained and approved as a search and rescue dog, or that is currently registered and approved for search and rescue work with a search and rescue team affiliated with the California Emergency Management Agency. The term also includes a dog that is in training to become registered and approved for that work. COMMENT AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 4 of ? 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: Existing law (Civil Code [Sec.] 54.25) provides protections for canines under the control of a firefighter or peace officer, exclusively. These canines are permitted to work off leash in the course of their duties and their handlers cannot be discriminated against in hotels, lodging establishments, eating establishments, or public transportation by being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit. These protections only apply during declared disasters and only to official firefighters and peace officers. Without the protections currently provided to search and rescue (SAR) dogs under the control of a firefighter or peace officer, the volunteer dog handlers are often forced to pay extra charges and security deposits, while peace officer and firefighter units are not. AB 2243 would remedy this problem by expanding these protections to SAR dog teams registered by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). It would also clarify that the protections also apply during "official mutual aid" deployments and not only during declared disasters. The author reported many instances of SAR dog handlers being charged additional fees by lodging establishments because of the presence of the SAR dogs. Further, Save Our Dogs, a supporter of this bill, demonstrates the critical need for this bill as follows: Many hotels/motels do not allow dogs, and many others have limits on the size of dogs such 20 or 30 pounds. Almost all SAR dogs are 30 to 90 pounds. . . . When a person is traveling with their dog on vacation this is not a significant problem - they have plenty of time in advance to find a hotel/motel that will accommodate their dog. SAR responders don't have time to do that . . . . We are often paged out late in the day to arrive at a distant location by early the next morning. SAR is an emergency. When the pager goes off, we load up our truck with our gear and dog, and drive. 2. Professional handler vs. volunteer handler This bill would extend to volunteer handlers of search and AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 5 of ? rescue dogs the discrimination protections currently provided only to peace officers and firefighters of canine units. One concern of expanding the protection to volunteer handlers may be that they are less qualified than police and firefighter canine units and may be unable to contain the search and rescue dog in public settings. As the author argues, members of these volunteer SAR groups are registered as Disaster Service Workers under state law and must meet strict standards established by Cal EMA and adopted by the California State Sheriff's Association and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. SAR members represent a variety of backgrounds including reserve peace officers, paramedics, or retired or working professionals and are dedicated to helping people. SAR teams are exposed to a wide variety of conditions and are expected to function in almost any environment in which they are placed. Minimum dog training requirements include socialization, obedience, and helicopter orientation. As a team, the canine and handler must pass a series of search tests to become "mission-ready." It takes an average of one-and-a-half to two years for a handler to become "mission-ready" and teams participate in on-going training throughout the year and must be certified and registered by Cal EMA on a regular basis. The training requirements are rigorous, with the expectation that the animal will function in almost any environment. Thus, the handler's status as "volunteer" should not preclude the dog from receiving protections (such as those listed in the bill) that befit its level of certified obedience and socialization. 3. Ability of private businesses to protect and control their premises from damage This bill is aimed at lodging and eating establishments and public transportation providers. Another argument against extending the discrimination protections to SAR dog handlers is that business owners will lose the ability to control their own property from damage caused by SAR dogs and be able to maintain a specific clientele. However, public policy of providing emergency responders such as SAR dog-handler teams with lodging, food, and transportation is heavily in favor of the emergency responders. This bill would not affect a business's ability to AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 6 of ? receive compensation through normal means for damages caused by a certified SAR dog during deployment. Under normal tort theory, the handler or their assigning agency will have responsibility for any damages that are caused by the actions of the dog or the human handler. Members of these teams incur all costs associated with training their dogs, travel, communications equipment, and other expenses, and many members take time off work to participate in searches and training. This bill also would make the volunteer SAR handler responsible for any damage created by the SAR dog. Further, the owners of the businesses and their employees even may benefit from the aid of SAR dog-handler teams in the event of an emergency situation. For these reasons, the public benefit of allowing SAR dog-handler teams access to lodging and eating establishments and public transportation outweighs the risk of damage to business owners. 4. Clarification of access to establishments and transportation This bill would clarify legislative intent that peace officers, firefighters, and handlers of canine units could not be denied access to lodging and food establishments and public transportation based on the presence of a SAR dog. Although AB 2131 prohibited discrimination of peace officers and firefighters of canine units, existing law does not specify the Legislature's intent to provide access to lodging and food establishments and public transportation. Instead, the law only prohibits businesses from charging additional fees for the presence of a SAR dog. Existing law provides that this discrimination protection is afforded to peace officer and firefighter teams when they are away from their home jurisdiction and in need of food, lodging, and transportation during deployment. Current law should reflect the legislative intent to provide access to these establishments. One concern is that owners of these establishments may be unable to remove the SAR dog in the event of a significant disturbance by the dog. Owners and customers should arguably not be forced to suffer disruptions to their quiet enjoyment of the establishment. To address this concern and provide owners with the ability to maintain the peace and quiet of their properties, while at the same time provide notice to the handler, the committee should consider the following amendment: Suggested amendment : AB 2243 (Smyth) Page 7 of ? On page 3, line 22 insert: "Nothing in this section is intended to prevent the removal of the search and rescue dog in the event the search and rescue dog creates an excessive disturbance to the quiet enjoyment of the property. In the event of an excessive disturbance, the peace officer, firefighter, or handler of the search and rescue dog must be given a minimum of one warning notice of the excessive disturbance and an opportunity to correct the disturbance. The mere presence of the dog within the hotel, lodging establishment, food establishment, or public transportation shall not be considered an excessive disturbance." Support : Antelope Valley Kennel Club Inc.; California Federation of Dog Clubs; California State Sheriffs' Association; Concerned Dog Owners of California; Irish Wolfhound Club of America, Inc.; The Humane Society of the United States; Peace Officers Research Association of California; PetPAC; Save Our Dogs Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Emergency Management Agency Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : See Background. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0) **************