BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1117
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1117 (Smyth) - As Amended: May 11, 2011
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires the court (current law authorizes) to impose
a condition of probation prohibiting animal ownership for a
person convicted of animal cruelty and granted probation, and
requires the court, regardless of sentence, to order the
convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or
her possession to a public entity. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a person conviction of misdemeanor animal cruelty
from owning an animal for five years, and a person convicted
of felony animal cruelty from owning an animal for 10 years.
2)Makes it a misdemeanor for any person convicted of animal
abuse to thereafter own, possess, maintain, have custody of,
live with, or care for any animal within the specified period
of the animal-ownership injunction.
3)Prohibits the court, following an acquittal or dismissal of
the case, from releasing seized animals to the defendant
unless the defendant establishes (a) proof of ownership, (b)
proof that all charges have been fully paid, (c) proof that
all animals are physically fit, (d) proof that the owner can
and will provide the necessary care, and (e) proof that all
the animals in question can legally be retained.
4)Creates an exception for the animal ownership prohibition for
livestock owners who can show the restriction would result in
undue economic hardship and that the defendant can care for
all livestock in his or her possession.
5)Allows a defendant to petition the court to reduce the period
AB 1117
Page 2
of the ownership prohibition if the defendant can establish
that he or she: (a) does not present a danger to animals, (b)
has the ability to properly care for animals, and (c) has
completed all court-ordered classes or counseling.
6)Makes changes to animal seizure procedures, designed to
clarify and enhance reimbursement for the costs of housing
seized animals.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown potentially state-reimbursable mandated costs, likely
in excess of $150,000, to county probation departments to
enforce mandatory conditions of probation, including home
visits.
For a point of reference, 35 persons were committed to state
prison over the past two years for felony animal cruelty,
which means there were likely considerably more felony
offenders who did not receive state prison time, as well as
hundreds of misdemeanor cases. If a similar number of felons
were added to formal probation caseloads as a result of the
animal conditions, the costs for these offenders alone would
be about $140,000. If these conditions resulted in a similar
number of misdemeanants being added to formal probation, those
costs would be in the range of $60,000.
2)Unknown, likely minor, nonreimbursable costs for local law
enforcement and incarceration, offset to a degree by increased
fine revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author and sponsor, the Humane Society, contend
animal abuse is sufficiently problematic to warrant curtailing
judicial discretion in this area and making animal forfeiture
mandatory.
According to The Humane Society of the United States, "Animals
must be protected from those who have failed to provide them
with the basic care required by law. People convicted of
harming animals must be considered capable of violence towards
other animals."
AB 1117
Page 3
2)Current law provides the court discretion to impose reasonable
conditions of probation as it may determine are fitting and
proper. In the case of animal cruelty, the court may, when a
defendant is convicted of animal abuse, order as a condition
of probation that the offender be prohibited from owning or
having any contact with animals of any kind, and order the
offender to deliver all animals in his or her possession to a
designated public entity for adoption or other lawful
disposition.
3)Does animal cruelty warrant the diminution of judicial
discretion ? Courts have broad discretion in considering and
ordering conditions of probation because they are in
possession of the specific facts and circumstances of each
case and each defendant. Mandatory sentencing minimums and
conditions of probation assume a one-size-fits-all disposition
is more effective than a case-based evaluation.
As noted in the Public Safety Committee analysis, eliminating
judicial discretion raises such circumstancial difficulties as
a situation in which a person convicted of animal cruelty or
neglect cannot reside in his or her own home if another family
member happens to have an animal on the property.
4)How will a post-probation animal possession ban be enforced ?
Will local law enforcement send officers to homes and farms to
monitor compliance? When the ban on animal ownership outlives
the period of probation, is it appropriate - or even
constitutional - to subject persons to unannounced inspections
by law enforcement or animal control?
5)Impact on local law enforcement and jail overcrowding . With
about half of the state's jails under population caps, and
with the pending realignment of non-serious and non-violent
state inmates to local incarceration and control, is increased
monitoring and punishment of animal ownership the best use of
local resources?
6)Opposition . The California Judges Association opposes the
elimination of judicial discretion in these cases. "An
enjoining order would probably be appropriate in most cases of
animal abuse, but exceptional cases can arise. The bill tries
to anticipate such exceptions, notably in cases where a
defendant would suffer substantial hardship were her livestock
confiscated (see proposed Penal Code section 597.9(d)), but
AB 1117
Page 4
there might still be other limited set of codified exceptions.
For example, under AB 1117, if a blind defendant were
convicted under an animal abuse statute for starving her
parakeet to death, the court would have no choice but to order
the defendant to give up her seeing-eye dog. Courts need
flexibility to make orders appropriate to the case at hand. By
taking away a court's discretion to do so, AB 1117 goes too
far."
7)Similar legislation (AB 243, Nava, 2010) was vetoed. Gov.
Schwarzenegger stated:
"This measure is unnecessary. Judges already have the
discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring
for animals if it's warranted. Making this order mandatory
could unjustly impact individuals who make a living working
with or caring for animals."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081