BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
1
1
AB 1117 (Smyth) 7
As Amended June 20, 2011
Hearing date: June 28, 2011
Penal Code
MK:mc
ANIMAL ABUSE: PENALTIES
HISTORY
Source: The Humane Society of the United States; spcaLA
Prior Legislation: AB 243 (Nava) - vetoed, 2009
Support: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals; State Humane Association of California;
California District Attorneys Association; Los Angeles
District Attorneys Association; Shasta County District
Attorney; Butte County Public Health Department,
Animal Control Division; City of Rancho Cucamonga;
California Animal Control Directors Association;
United Animal Nations; The SPCA for Monterey County;
Lake Tahoe Humane Society; Animal Samaritans SPCA;
Santa Cruz SPCA; Animal Issues Movement; Haven Humane
Society; The Humane Society of the North Bay Animal
Services Division; Animal Place; Paw PAC
Opposition:Agricultural Council of California; Alliance of
Western Milk Producers; Association of California Egg
Farmers; California Grain and Feed Association;
California Horse Council; Charros Foundation, USA;
Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association; Western United
Dairymen
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 2
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT WHEN A PERSON IS CONVICTED OF AN ANIMAL
ABUSE RELATED OFFENSE, HE OR SHE WILL BE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING,
CARING FOR, ET CETERA, AN ANIMAL FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME; AND
IF THE PROHIBITION IS VIOLATED, HE OR SHE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE
OF $1,000?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit a person who has been
convicted of specified animal abuse crimes from owning or caring
for an animal for a specified period of time.
Existing law creates a misdemeanor punishable 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 § 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 § 597 (b).)
Existing law mandates that whoever carries or causes to be
carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 3
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 therefor. (Penal Code § 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 or 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,
by a fine not to exceed $1000, or both. (Penal Code § 597b
(a).)
Existing law necessitates that any person who causes a cock to
fight with another cock, or permits the same to be done on any
property under his or 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 § 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 § 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 or her vendee or any other person is guilty of a
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 4
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 § 597j.)
Existing law states that every person who willfully abandons any
animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 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, 2 or 3 years, by a
fine not to exceed $50,000, or by both such fine and
imprisonment:
Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with
the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an
exhibition of fighting with another dog.
For the amusement or gain, causes any dog to
fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure
each other.
Permits any of the aforementioned acts in
violation to be done on any premises under his or
her charge or control, or aids or abets that act.
(Penal Code § 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 § 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
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 5
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 § 597.1 (a).)
Existing law sets forth the procedure for seizure and
impoundment of an animal. (Penal Code § 597.1 (f)-(j).)
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 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 or 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 § 597.1 (k).)
This bill instead provides that 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 or 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. In the event of the acquittal or final discharge
without conviction of the arrested person, the court shall, on
demand, direct the release of seized or impounded animals upon
a showing of proof of ownership.
This bill clarifies that the court may order a person convicted
of Penal Code sections 597, 597a or 597.1 to immediately deliver
all animals in his or her possession to a designated public
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 6
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 animal.
This bill provides that in the event of the acquittal or final
discharge without conviction of the arrested person, the court
shall, on demand, direct the release of seized or impounded
animals upon a showing of proof of ownership.
This bill provides that it is a public offense punishable by a
fine of $1,000 for any person who has been convicted of a
misdemeanor violation of Penal Code Section 597, 597a, 597b,
597h, 597j, 597s or 597.1 and within 5 years after that
conviction owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides
with , or cares for any animal.
This bill provides that it is a public offense punishable by a
fine of $1,000 for any person who has been convicted of a felony
violation of Penal Code sections 597, 597b or 597.5 and within
10 years after that conviction owns, possesses, maintains, has
custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal.
This bill provides that owners of livestock may file a petition
in court to seek to be exempted from the above prohibitions by
showing that the imposition of the prohibitions would result in
substantial and undue economic hardship to the defendant's
livelihood and that the defendant has the ability to properly
care for all livestock in his or her possession.
This bill provides that a defendant may also petition the court
to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition if
he or she establishes that: he or she does not present a danger
to animals; he or she has the ability to properly care for all
animals in his or her possession; and, he or she has
successfully completed all classes or counseling ordered by the
court.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 7
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 8
According to the author:
Animal abuse is a pervasive problem that continues to
impact animals, law enforcement, and animal shelters
throughout the state. This bill seeks to prevent
future instances of animal abuse and seeks to assist
local animal control agencies, by reducing the amount
of animals in need of sheltering. To meet these goals,
this bill outlines a simple solution to problems
associated with animal abuse. AB 1117 will establish
that misdemeanor and felony animal abuse convictions
result in a prohibition of animal ownership of 5 years
for a misdemeanor conviction and 10 years for a felony.
This prohibition of ownership post-conviction will
assist in protecting animals, as the recidivism rate
for most animal abuse crimes nearly 100%.
(More)
Additionally, many studies demonstrate a key linkage
between animal abuse and other violent behaviors.
These studies show that animal abuse behaviors can
lead to domestic violence, elder abuse and child
abuse.
Both the recidivism rate and the correlation to more
sever abusive behaviors evoke the need for AB 1117.
However, California would not be the first state to
establish a post-conviction ownership prohibition.
Many other states have already established similar
statutes, including Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oregon, Washington, West Virginia and U.S. Virgin
Islands. The majority of these laws have at minimum a
5 year prohibition and at maximum a 15 year
prohibition, with the exception of the U.S. Virgin
Islands which allows the court to prohibit ownership
of an animal for, "up to the life time of the
offender."
Currently in California, the court has the discretion
to prohibit ownership, possession, caring for, or
residing with an animal as part of the probation terms
for misdemeanor and felony animal abuse convictions.
However, many of those convicted of animal abuse
crimes are still able to own and reside with animals
post-conviction. Given the statistics related to
recidivism and connection between animal abuse and
other violent behavior, greater restrictions are
needed for convicted animal abusers. As such, the
goal of this bill is to prevent continued abuse by
requiring those convicted of a misdemeanor or felony
to be prohibited from owning an animal for 5 or 10
year respectively.
2. Prohibition from Possession of Animal after Abuse Conviction
This bill provides that if a person is convicted of specified
misdemeanor animal abuse statutes, the person is prohibited
(More)
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 10
from owning, possessing, maintaining, having custody of,
residing with, or caring for any animal for a period of not
less than five years. If the person is convicted of specified
felony animal abuse statutes, the prohibition will be 10 years.
A violation of this prohibition would be a public offense
punishable by a fine of $1,000.
Upon conviction, the court may also order the person to
immediately deliver all animals in his or her possession to a
designated public entity for adoption or other lawful
disposition, or provide proof that the person no longer has any
animals.
If a person is an owner of livestock, he or she may file a
petition with the court and the court may find in the interest
of justice that the prohibition against owning or caring for
animals would cause economic hardship on the person, and the
person has the ability to properly care for all animals in his
or her possession.
A person may also petition the court to reduce the duration of
the prohibition by showing he or she does not present a danger
to animals, he or she has the ability to properly care for all
animals in his or her possession, and he or she has successfully
completed all classes or counseling ordered by the court.
3. Support
Supporters of this bill argue that animal abuse is often part of
a long-term pattern of abuse against animals, and those
convicted of animal abuse should be prohibited from owning an
animal for a period of time. Specifically, Animal Issues
Movement states:
Unfortunately animal abuse is a symptom of much
greater psycho-social and emotional issues and has
often been a long pattern of behavior developed in
childhood. We cannot expect those who are addicted to
power, control and venting their anger on voiceless
AB 1117 (Smyth)
Page 11
beings to immediately change that behavior.
It is important that we do not become enablers by
allowing them private access
to helpless victims before they had time to obtain
long term rehabilitation.
4. Opposition
The agricultural associations in opposition to this bill believe
that the bill:
ÝW]ould alter the balance in the criminal justice
system between animal protection officers, livestock
producers, animal owners and the courts. The current
system offers judges and prosecutors adequate tools to
address animal cruelty violations-including
prohibiting the perpetrator from owning an animal for
a specified period. By eliminating the discretion of
the judge and providing additional powers shifted to
the authorities, we believe this legislation goes too
far and will upset the balance of justice.
The proponents state the purpose of this bill is to
address chronic hoarders - a condition a judge may not
be aware of when sentencing. This bill is far too
broad to remedy that specific issue and may lead to
unforeseen negative circumstances.
***************