BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
1
4
SB 1145 (Emmerson) 5
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing date: April 10, 2012
Penal Code
MK:mc
ANIMAL FIGHTING
HISTORY
Source: San Bernardino District Attorney; The Humane Society of
the United States
Prior Legislation: SB 425 (Calderon) - Chapter 562, Stats. 2011
SB 917 (Lieu) - Chapter 131, Stats. 2011
SB 318 (Calderon) - Chapter 302, Stats. 2009
SB 1775 (Calderon) - Failed in Senate Public Safety
2008
SB 1349 (Soto) - Chapter 430, Stats. 2006
SB 156 (Soto) - Moved to Assembly Inactive File,
then amended to different subject 2005-2006
SB 732 (Soto) - Chapter 256, Stats. 2003
SB 196 (Knight) - Chapter 422, Stats. 1997
SB 1587 (Roberti) - 1989, not chaptered
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Narcotic Officers
Association
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE PENALTIES FOR VARIOUS MISDEMEANORS RELATING TO ANIMAL
FIGHTING BE INCREASED TO $10,000?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the fines for various
misdemeanors relating to animal fighting.
Existing law provides that any person who does any of the
following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years
or by a fine not exceeding $50,000:
§ 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 amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight
with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure
each other.
§ Permits either of the above to be done on any
premises under his or her charge or control, or
aids, or abets that act. (Penal Code § 597.5
(a).)
Existing law provides that any person who is knowingly
present, as a spectator, at any place, building, or tenement
where preparations are being made for an exhibition of the
fighting of dogs, with the intent to be present at those
preparations, or is knowingly present at the exhibitions or at
any other fighting or injuring with the intent to be present
at that exhibition, fighting or injuring, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or
a fine not to exceed $5,000. (Penal Code § 597.5 (b).)
Existing law provides that any person, who for amusement or
gain, causes any bull, bear, or other animal, not including
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageC
any dog, to fight with the like kind of animal or creature, or
causes any animal, including any dog, to fight with a
different kind of animal or creature, or with any human being;
or who, for amusement or gain, worries or injures any bull,
bear, dog, or other animal, or causes any bull, bear or other
animal, not including any dog, to worry or injure each other;
and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises
under his or her charge or control; and any person who aids,
abets, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year
in jail and/or a fine of $5,000. (Penal Code § 597b(a).)
This bill makes the fine for the above violation $10,000.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to cause, for amusement or
gain, an animal to fight a like or different animal. The
penalty for a first offense is up to one year in county jail
and/or a fine of $5,000. (Penal Code § 597b(b).)
This bill makes the fine for the above violation $10,000.
Existing law provides that any person who is knowingly
present as a spectator at any place, building, or tenement
for an exhibition of animal fighting, or who is knowingly
present where preparations are being made for animal
fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6
months in jail and a fine up to $1,000. (Penal Code §
597c.)
This bill makes the fine for the above violation $5,000.
Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor punishable by
up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine up to $2,500 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 provides that it is a misdemeanor punishable by up
to one year in county jail and/or a fine up to $5,000 for any
person to manufacture, buy, sell, barter, exchange or to have in
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageD
his or her possession any of the implements commonly known as
gaffs or slashers, or any other sharp implement designed to be
attached in place of the natural spur of a gamecock or other
fighting bird. (Penal Code § 587i.s)
This bill makes the fine for the above violation $10,000.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to own,
possess, keep or train any bird or animal with the intent that
it be used in an exhibition of fighting. The penalty for a
first offense is up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of
$5,000. (Penal Code § 597j(a).)
This bill makes the fine for the above violation $10,000.
Existing law provides that a second or subsequent violation of
Penal Code Section 597j is a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to
one year in county jail and/or a fine up to $25,000. (Penal
Code § 597j.)
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageE
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
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. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageF
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 1145 seeks to increase fines on individuals who are
involved in animal fighting. The fine under current
law for being a participant in an animal fight,
excluding dogs, or holding an animal fighting event is
$5,000. Likewise, for the owner/trainer of a bird or
other animal intended to be used in a fight the fine is
also $5,000. SB 1145 would double these fines to
$10,000. Additionally, for individuals who possess the
implements known as gaffs or slashers that are attached
to a bird in a cockfight, this bill seeks to increase
the fine from $5,000 to $10,000. Furthermore,
cockfighting occurs and continues to be a problem
because people are willing to pay money to attend these
events. Therefore, SB 1145 would also increase the
fine on spectators from $1,000 to $5,000.
(More)
In California, cockfighting is a misdemeanor for the
first offense, rising to a felony the second time
around; however, it is an automatic felony in our
neighboring states of Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico.
Furthermore, cockfighting is not limited to any one
area in California, taking place throughout the state.
With that being said, the top five counties with the
highest number of cockfighting incidents involving law
enforcement are Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego and Fresno. Since January 2008, there have
been more than 100 major cockfighting busts in 35
counties involving more than 20,000 live or dead birds.
In addition, as of January 2012 there have been at
least six cockfighting busts around the state.
Illegal animal fighting results in animal cruelty and
is often times associated with a number of other
illegal activities including the infiltration of gangs,
illegal drug activity, gambling and other serious
crimes. SB 1145 is a necessary measure that increases
the fines for cockfighting, eliminating the financial
benefit for engaging in this brutal enterprise.
2. Fines and Penalty Assessments in General
Added to every fine imposed are approximately 280% in penalty
assessments.<1> Thus, a $100 fine is really about $380; a $500
fine is $1,900; a $1,000 fine is $3,800; a $2,500 fine is
$9,500; a $5,000 fine is $19,000; a $10,000 fine is $38,000;
$25,000 fine is $95,000; and, a $50,000 fine is $190,000. In
addition to fines, a defendant also pays court ordered
---------------------------
<1> Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are approximately 280% plus an additional $4 per
fine. (See Penal Code § 1464; Penal Code § 1465.7; Penal Code §
1465.8; Government Code § 70372; Government Code § 7600.5;
Government Code § 76000 et seq; Government Code § 76000.10;
Government Code § 76104.6.)
(More)
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageH
restitution to the victim.
3. Increased Fines for Misdemeanors Relating to Animal
Fighting
This bill increases from $5,000 to $10,000 fines for causing an
animal fight. The $5,000 fines were put in existing law with SB
1349 (Soto) in 2006, thus took effect in 2007.
This bill also increases the fine for being a spectator at an
animal fight from $1,000 to $5,000. This section was added to
the law by SB 1349 in 2006, when the law was revised to separate
being a spectator into its own section.
This bill changes the fine for possessing implements to be used
in cockfighting from $5,000 to $10,000. The current fine was
added by SB 732 (Soto) in 2003.
Finally, this bill changes the fine for training a bird to fight
from $5,000 to $10,000. The current fine was also added by SB
1349 (Soto) in 2006.
Since $5,000 is ordinarily a high fine for a misdemeanor, it
would be interesting to determine since January 2007 how many
cases have been charged and in how many of those cases has the
maximum fine been sought. If they are not currently seeking or
getting the maximum fine, what is the rationale behind
increasing the fine? Also, what impact does a higher fine have
on the ability to impose and collect restitution especially in
cases where the animals have been taken care of by a humane
agency or the restitution money could be used to rehabilitate an
animal?
4. Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) opposes
increases in fines for "mere presences or participation in
animal fighting events" stating:
CACJ believes that existing fines and criminal
SB 1145 (Emmerson)
PageI
sanctions for such matters amply reflects society's
disapproval for such things and serves as a real
deterrent. Such fines as the author seeks to
authorize are disproportionate to any harms occasioned
by these crimes, and are subject to discriminatory
misuse and abuse.
***************