BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1162|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1162
Author: Runner (R), et al.
Amended: 6/13/12
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMM. : 7-0, 5/14/12
AYES: Price, Emmerson, Corbett, Correa, Hernandez, Negrete
McLeod, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Strickland, Wyland
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/12/12
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
SUBJECT : Animal control: tranquilizers
SOURCE : City of Hesperia
Town of Apple Valley
DIGEST : This bill allows an animal control or humane
officer to administer a tranquilizer when under the direct
or indirect supervision of, and trained by, a veterinarian.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes any peace officer,
humane society officer, or animal control officer to take
possession of a stray or abandoned animal and to provide
care and treatment for the animal until the animal is
deemed to be in suitable condition to be returned to the
animal's owner.
CONTINUED
SB 1162
Page
2
Existing law regulates the distribution of controlled
substances, as defined. Among other things, these
provisions authorize certain practitioners, including a
physician or a veterinarian, or the authorized agent of
that practitioner in the presence of the practitioner, to
administer controlled substances.
This bill provides that if an animal control or humane
control officer, when necessary to protect the health and
safety of a wild, stray or abandoned animal or the health
and safety of a wild, stray, or abandoned animal or the
health and safety of others, seeks to administer a
tranquilizer that contains a controlled substances to gain
control of the animal, he/she may possess and administer
that tranquilizer with direct or indirect supervision as
determined by a licensed veterinarian provided that the
officer has received the specified training in the
administration of tranquilizers from a licensed
veterinarian.
This bill provides that in order to administer the
tranquilizer, the officer must meet all of the following
requirements:
The training required shall be approved by the
California Veterinary Medical Board.
He/she has successfully completed the firearms
component of a course relating to the exercise of police
powers as specified in Section 832 of the Penal Code.
He/she is authorized by his/her agency or organization
to possess and administer the tranquilizer in accordance
with a policy established by the agency or organization
and approved by the veterinarian who obtained the
controlled substance.
He/she has successfully completed the euthanasia
training set forth in Section 2039 of Title 16 of the
California Code of Regulations.
He/she has completed a state and federal fingerprinting
background check and does not have any drug or alcohol
related convictions.
SB 1162
Page
3
Background
Attorney General's (AG) Opinion . According to the AG,
California law requires that an animal control officer must
take possession of an animal that he/she reasonably
believes is a stray or has been abandoned by its owner, and
must provide care and treatment for the animal until it is
in a fit condition to be returned to its owner or place for
adoption. An animal control officer may also seize an
animal when reasonably necessary to protect the safety of
the animal or the public, and that he/she may destroy an
animal when circumstances require, for example when an
animal is too severely injured to move and it would be more
humane to destroy it. Although they are not peace
officers, animal control officers may, under specified
circumstances, exercise powers of arrest, carry and use
firearms, and serve warrants.
The AG further points out, that animal control officers
must often react swiftly to emergency situations in the
field, in order to capture injured animals or to protect
the public from rabid or otherwise dangerous domesticated
or wild animals such as dogs, foxes, and coyotes, as well
as from inherently dangerous wild animals such as mountain
lions and bears. In many cases, it is necessary to use
controlled substances (which are stored securely in a
city's or county's animal control shelter) to subdue an
animal. However, prior to any use of drugs, animal control
officers must obtain authorization from a designated
licensed veterinarian.
The AG indicates that they have been told that in practice
a licensed veterinarian is not always available for
consultation when an animal-control emergency arises.
Moreover, the necessity of retrieving controlled substances
from a central location, and of waiting for them to be
brought into the field, can create delays that may be
detrimental to the public's health and safety.
The AG was asked to determine whether an animal control
officer may ever lawfully administer a controlled substance
on his/her own authority to subdue wild or dangerous
animals without the contemporaneous consultation of a
SB 1162
Page
4
licensed veterinarian. The AG concluded that the
applicable statutory scheme does not give animal control
officers independent authority to administer controlled
substances. The AG opined that the California Uniform
Controlled Substances Act prohibits the possession of a
controlled substance, unless upon the written prescription
of a licensed practitioner, as defined, or the
administering of this type of drug in the field by an
animal control officer without first contemporaneously
consulting, and receiving direction from, a licensed
veterinarian.
However, the AG did indicate (as a footnote) that they
understand the practice and need for animal control
officers in some local jurisdictions to administer
controlled substances in the field without contemporaneous
consultation with licensed veterinarians and that the
reasons why this is done stem directly from the
difficulties encountered in trying to manage extreme and
dangerous emergencies where time is of the essence and the
only other alternative may be to destroy the animal in
question. The AG states, "This opinion concludes that this
practice does not comport with current law. In view of the
asserted need for more humane alternatives. The
Legislature may wish to consider examining the
circumstances confronting local jurisdictions to determine
whether adjustments in the law are in order to ensure that
the option of tranquilization will be available as an
alternative to destroying the animals. Development of such
a policy is, however, beyond the scope of this opinion."
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Enforcement of
Controlled Substances Act . The DEA is the primary federal
agency responsible to enforce the controlled substances
laws and regulations of the United States. Recently, the
DEA has become concerned about controlled substances which
are provided to licensed (practitioner) registrants being
stored outside the registered place of business of the
registrant. According to the California Veterinary Medical
Association (CVMA), in recent weeks, the Sacramento
District Office of the DEA has been actively addressing
this issue by notifying veterinary professionals of the
current law that these drugs must reside with the
registrant. It is unclear at this time what problems this
SB 1162
Page
5
may cause, if any, by maintaining the tranquilizer drug
(controlled substance) at a location other than that of the
veterinarians registered place of business.
Direct and Indirect Supervision by Veterinarians . The term
used by the AG, "contemporaneous consulting" is not
normally used within the context of the appropriate level
of oversight or direction to be given by a health care
practitioner. The degree of oversight, or what is commonly
referred to as "supervision" of one practitioner by
another, or of someone who is not a licensed practitioner,
is usually referred to as either direct or indirect
supervision. If direct supervision is required, then it
may require the actual presence and consultation with the
practitioner, or if indirect supervision is required it may
require that special procedures, protocols or written or
oral orders be followed with possible consultation either
pre- or post-treatment or when the administration of drugs
(controlled substances) is provided. The degree or level
of supervision is usually determined by the supervising
practitioner and with those being supervised and with
facilities where treatment or the administration of drugs
is to be provided. For example, licensed veterinarians may
allow a registered veterinary technician, or an
unregistered (un-licensed) assistant to administer a drug,
including a controlled substance, under either direct or
indirect supervision when done pursuant to the order,
control, and full professional responsibility of a
veterinarian. Regulations of the Veterinary Medical Board
define both direct and indirect supervision and it
basically says that the veterinarian does not have to be
present at the time and that providing the controlled
substance can be done pursuant to either written or oral
instructions prior to its administration.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/12/12)
City of Hesperia (co-source)
Town of Apple Valley (co-source)
California Veterinary Medical Association
City of Adelanto
SB 1162
Page
6
League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
State Humane Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
when necessary to protect an animal or the safety of the
public, animal control officers are required to take
possession of any stray or abandoned animal and provide
care and treatment for the animal. Local animal control
officers must sometimes use a controlled substance to
tranquilize and gain control of an animal. California law
requires that such drugs be stored in a central location
and officers obtain contemporaneous authorization from a
licensed veterinarian prior to administering any drugs. In
practice, however, a licensed veterinarian is not always
available and the necessity of having a veterinarian
supervise when administering the drugs could jeopardize
public safety.
The author's office points out that a recent AG's decision
indicates that prior consultation with a licensed
veterinarian is insufficient (Opinion 08-505, 12/23/11).
Moreover, the AG's opinion finds that "the duties of local
animal control officers, which consist of protecting
animals and the public through the enforcement of local
animal control laws," does not fit within the context of
current law.
The author's office states that animal control officers
must act quickly when there is an emergency situation in
the field in order to capture injured animals or to protect
the public from dangerous animals. It is not always
possible to immediately determine whether an animal is a
stray, abandoned or wild. While animal control officers
have general authority to kill an injured animal or one
posing an immediate threat to public safety, this is a
remedy of last resort. In the case of protected species,
like a mountain lion, a depredation permit may be required
before killing the animal, which causes further concerns.
The author's office believes that limited authorization for
animal control officers to use tranquilizers under these
exigent circumstances would be more humane and would better
protect public safety.
SB 1162
Page
7
JJA:k 6/13/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****