BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1500
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2012
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1500 (Lieu) - As Amended: June 13, 2012
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Allows pre-conviction forfeiture of a defendant's
seized animals in animal abuse and neglect cases. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Clarifies that when costs are owed for the care and treatment
of a seized animal, they are "full" costs.
2)Clarifies that when an animal is deemed abandoned, it becomes
the property of the seizing agency, and deletes language
stating that the impounding officer may dispose of the animal.
3)Allows a seizing agency or a prosecutor, in the case of
adoptable cats and dogs, to file a petition requesting
pre-conviction forfeiture of the animal the pending criminal
case and requesting that the court order the animal forfeited
prior to final disposition of the criminal charges.
4)Requires the prosecutor or seizing agency to serve a true copy
of the pre-conviction forfeiture petition on the defendant and
the prosecuting attorney.
5)Requires the court to set a hearing on the pre-conviction
forfeiture petition within 14 days after filing or as soon as
practicable.
6)Requires the court to order immediate forfeiture of an animal
during the pendency of a criminal proceeding if the petitioner
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner will not
legally be permitted to retain the animal in question even in
the event of an acquittal of criminal charges.
7)Specifies that nothing in this section is intended to
authorize a seizing agency or prosecutor to file a
post-conviction petition to determine an owner's ability to
SB 1500
Page 2
legally retain an animal if a pre-conviction forfeiture
petition previously has been filed.
8)Changes the defendant's burden of proof at a hearing on a
petition for reduction of an ownership prohibition or a
livestock owner economic hardship exception to "preponderance
of the evidence."
9)Makes technical, non-substantive changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States it is 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 to
maliciously or intentionally kill an animal. ĘPenal Code
Section 597(a).]
2)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.
ĘPenal Code Section 597(b).]
3)States that ever person who willfully abandons any animal is
guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code Section 597s.)
4)Provides that any peace officer, humane society officer, or
animal control officer shall take possession of a 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. ĘPenal Code
Section 597.1(a).]
5)States that the owner of a seized animal is liable for the
cost of caring and treating the animal, that these costs will
SB 1500
Page 3
be considered a lien on the animal, and that the animal will
not be returned until the charges are paid. ĘPenal Code
Section 597.1(a), (b), and (c).]
6)Provides if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any
other permitted charges are not paid within 14 days of the
seizure, or, if the owner, within 14 days of notice of
availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay
charges and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be
deemed to have been abandoned. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(h).]
7)Specifies that the owner of an animal that has been seized has
the right to request a post-seizure hearing to determine the
validity of the seizure. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(f).]
8)Specifies that the owner of an animal has the right to hearing
before an animal is seized when the need for the animal's
immediate seizure is not present. ĘPenal Code Section
597.1(f).]
9)Sets forth the notice requirements and the procedures for
animal-seizure hearings. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(f) and
(g).]
10)Disallows the return of a seized animal to the owner until
the seizing agency or hearing officer determines that the
animal is physically fit or until the owner shows to the
satisfaction of the hearing officer or seizing agency that the
owner can and will provide necessary care. ĘPenal Code
Section 597.1(j).]
11)Provides that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation
of specified sections relating to animal cruelty and who,
within five years of conviction, owns, possesses, maintain,
has custody of, resides with or cares for any animal is guilty
of a public offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000. ĘPenal
Code Section 597.9(a).]
12)Provides that any person convicted of a felony violation of
specified sections relating to animal cruelty and who, within
10 years of the conviction owns, possesses, maintains, has
custody of, resides with or cares for any animal is guilty of
a public offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000. ĘPenal Code
Section 597.9(b).]
SB 1500
Page 4
13)Creates an exception for the animal-ownership injunction for
livestock owners who can establish that the restriction would
result in substantial or 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.
ĘPenal Code Section 597.9(c)(1).]
14)Allows a convicted person to petition the court for a
reduction to the duration of the prohibition by showing that
he or she does not present a danger to animals, has the
ability to properly care for all animals in his or her
possession, and has successfully completed all court-ordered
classes and counseling. ĘPenal Code Section 597.9(d)(1).]
15)Gives the court discretion, in the event the length of the
mandatory ownership prohibition is reduced, to order that the
defendant comply with reasonable and unannounced inspections
by animal control or law enforcement. ĘPenal Code Section
597.9(d)(2).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 1500 has
three primary goals.
"The first is to fix a loophole regarding the term 'or' in Penal
Code Section 597.1, that results in abused animals being
returned to their owners under the sole condition that the
animal is physically fit. Specifically, current law states
that at a hearing conducted after the seizure of an animal,
the animal may be returned to its owner if it is physically
fit or if the owner demonstrates to the seizing agency or
hearing officer that the owner can provide the necessary care
and does not present a danger to the animal. The word "or"
makes the physical fitness of the animal the sole necessary
condition for the return of the animal. Because these
hearings often take place weeks after the initial seizure, the
seized animal has often been nursed back to health - thus,
regardless of the owner's ability to care for/no longer abuse
the animal, animal control agencies feel legally obligated to
return the animal. SB 1500 attempts to fix this loophole by
removing the physical fitness provision and making the owner's
ability to care for the animal the only necessary criterion in
SB 1500
Page 5
order to return the animal.
"The second goal of the bill is to make clear the fiscal
responsibilities and procedures associated with the costs of
housing a seized animal. This bill modifies the term 'costs'
for seizing agencies to cover for the care and treatment of
the animal by amending the language to cover the 'full cost.'
This clarifying amendment eliminates any ambiguity as to what
part the owner of the animal is required to pay and restates
the Legislature's intent to place the financial responsibility
with the owner.
"The final goal of SB 1500 is to address problems of housing
animals taken in as part of certain types of criminal
proceedings. Current law stipulates that individuals or
households may only own a certain number of specified animals.
Other kinds of pet ownership are outlawed entirely. In cases
where 'hoarders,' people who collect unlawful numbers of
animals, or in cases where people own illegal exotic pets,
even if the owner is eventually acquitted of criminal charges
brought against them, they will not be legally allowed to keep
(most of) their animals. However, since the animals are
evidence in a criminal case, the shelter must continue to hold
them until the cessation of criminal proceedings, and cannot
adopt them to other owners or donate exotic animals to zoos.
These seized animals take up valuable shelter space, and other
healthy, adoptable animals that come to the shelter are often
euthanized unnecessarily due to the lack of space. SB 1500
would change would allow an agency or prosecutor to request a
hearing, during which a judge will determine whether, even in
the event of an acquittal, either the owner cannot or will not
provide the necessary care for the animals or that the owner
will not legally be permitted to retain the animals in
question. The agency or prosecutor would have the burden of
establishing either of these points by a preponderance of the
evidence."
2)Pre-Conviction Forfeiture Proceedings : Under current law,
seized animals are usually housed until criminal proceedings
are resolved. This bill allows the seizing agency or
prosecutor to file a petition in a pending criminal action for
forfeiture of the seized animal. The court can order the
immediate forfeiture of the seized animal before the final
disposition of the criminal case, if the prosecutor or seizing
agency establishes by a preponderance of the evidence, that
SB 1500
Page 6
even in the event of an acquittal, the owner will not legally
be permitted to retain the animal in question.
In this respect the pre-conviction forfeiture provisions of
this bill are similar to old standards for drug-asset
forfeiture. Before California's drug forfeiture laws were
reformed in 1994 by AB 114 (Burton), Chapter 314, Statutes of
1994, forfeiture did not need to be based on a criminal
conviction and could be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee
analysis, the author of AB 114 stated, "Existing asset
forfeiture statutes are susceptible to abuse. Innocent people
have all too frequently lost their property without due
process. The purpose of this bill is to put in place
necessary protections to ensure that people's property rights,
and due process rights, are protected." Currently in drug
forfeiture cases, it is generally a condition precedent to
forfeiture that a defendant be convicted.
The provisions of this bill are at odds with current law on
animal fighting forfeiture proceedings. (Penal Code Section
598.1.) In criminal cases involving dogfighting or
cockfighting, the prosecutor may, in conjunction with the
criminal proceeding, file a petition of forfeiture with the
superior court of the county in which the defendant has been
charged with the commission of those crimes that shall allege
that the defendant has committed those crimes and the property
is forfeitable. ĘPenal Code Section 598.1(a) and (c).] The
forfeiture proceedings are set for hearing in the superior
court in which the underlying charges are set to be tried.
ĘPenal Code Section 598.1(f)(1).] Then, if the defendant is
found guilty of the underlying offense, the issue of
forfeiture is promptly tried. ĘPenal Code Section
598.1(f)(2).] At the forfeiture hearing, the prosecutor has
the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt (not
preponderance of the evidence as in this bill) that the
defendant was engaged in the prohibited crimes. ĘPenal Code
Section 598.1(g).]
Existing law also permits the seizure of any animals used in
fighting as well as all paraphernalia, implements or other
property or things used or employed, or about to be employed
in violation of any bird or animal fighting statute. Upon
conviction, the seized property shall be deemed forfeited.
(Penal Code Section 599aa.)
SB 1500
Page 7
Arguably the framework of current law pertaining to forfeiture
proceedings in animal fighting cases may not be effective in
cases involving the hoarding of adoptable cats and dogs that
are allegedly abused or neglected. The longer the cats and
dogs stay caged at a shelter, the less adoptable they become,
thereby increasing the possibility the animals have to be
euthanized.
3)Background on Procedures for Seizing Animals : An animal can
be seized in several different ways. First, a peace officer,
humane society officer, or animal control officer can seize a
stray or abandoned animal. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(a) and
(b).] Additionally, when an officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that very prompt action is required to protect the
health or safety of an abandoned, stray, sick or infirm, or
cruelly treated animal, or the health and safety of others,
the officer is required to immediately seize the animal.
(Ibid.) Authorities can also obtain a warrant upon a showing
of probable cause, and then seize the animal pursuant to the
warrant. (See e.g., Penal Code Section 599a.) In these
three instances, the owner is afforded the right to a
post-seizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure
or impoundment or both. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(f).]
Finally, if animal control observes unsuitable conditions, but
these conditions do not rise to the level of exigent
circumstances (i.e., the need for immediate seizure is not
present), a pre-seizure hearing occurs before the animal can
be seized and before criminal proceedings for animal abuse or
neglect commence. ĘPenal Code Section 597.1(g).] In this
situation, the owner must produce the animal at the time of
the hearing unless before the hearing he or she allowed the
agency to view the animal, or unless the owner can provide
verification that the animal was already humanely destroyed.
(Ibid.)
4)Argument in Support : According to the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office , (the sponsor of this bill), "SB 1500
addresses existing deficiencies in California's animal neglect
criminal statute that currently allows animals to be returned
to abusive owners and results in many adoptable pets having to
being euthanized because of crowding. SB 1500, which makes a
number of technical amendments to Penal Code Section 597.1,
has two major components.
SB 1500
Page 8
"First, under PC §597.1 if an animal is seized because the
officer believes that immediate action is required to protect
the health and safety of the animal or the health and safety
of others, the owner is entitled to a post-seizure hearing.
The purpose of the hearing is to determine the validity of the
seizure and whether the animal should be returned to the
owner. Existing law states the animal shall be returned to
its owner if the seizing agency or hearing officer has
determined that the animal is physically fit or the owner
demonstrates to the seizing agency's or the hearing officer's
satisfaction that the owner can and will provide the necessary
care.
"Every week across the state animal control agencies return
animals to owners who have mistreated their animals due to
existing language in PC §597.1. Because of the use of the
word "or", hearing officers are placed in the position of
being forced to return an animal to the person who caused it
to be in such a condition that an officer felt that prompt
action was needed to save the animal because the shelter had
nursed the animal back to health, knowing that the person was
either unwilling or incapable of providing the necessary care.
The usage of the term 'or' has resulted in many animals being
returned to the same harmful environments with their abusers.
"SB 1500 amends existing law so that an animal shall not be
returned to its owner '?until the charges are paid and the
owner demonstrates to the seizing agency or hearing officer's
satisfaction that the owner can and will provide the necessary
care for the animal.'
"Second, SB 1500 would allow a seizing agency or a prosecutor
to file a petition in the criminal action requesting that the
court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the county or
seizing agency prior to final disposition of the criminal
charge.
"Currently, if an owner does not voluntarily relinquish their
animal to the seizing agency, the agency is forced to keep the
animal until the criminal case is resolved - even when the
defendant will not ever be able to keep the animal - even if
acquitted.
"For example, in the case of hoarders where large numbers of
SB 1500
Page 9
animals are seized at one time, an agency can be forced to
house literally hundreds of animals. This creates a huge
drain on an agency's resources. Because most cities and
counties have legal limits on the number of animals a person
may have on their property, hoarders will never be able to get
all of their animals back.
"SB 1500 would allow an agency or prosecutor to request a
hearing, during which a judge will determine whether, even in
the event of an acquittal, the owner will not legally be
permitted to retain the animal(s) in question. The agency or
prosecutor would have the burden of establishing either of
this point by a preponderance of the evidence.
"This provision not only helps the seized animals find a safe
and happy home sooner but also benefits the other animals in
shelters who would otherwise have to be euthanized if there
was not enough space to care and house them at a shelter.
"SB 1500 also modifies the term 'costs' for seizing agencies
to cover for the care and treatment of the animal by amending
the language to cover the 'full cost.' This clarifying
amendment eliminates any ambiguity as to what part the owner
of the animal is required to pay and restates the
Legislature's intent to place the financial responsibility
with the owner."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California
Federation of Dog Clubs , "This bill would allow for
unprecedented abuse by agencies empowered with animal seizure
authority. Public or private agencies would be granted the
status of judge, jury, and executioner in cases related to
animals. Animal owners will be subject to capricious
deprivation of their constitutional right to maintain
ownership of their property. Even animal owners who are
acquitted of the charges against them may be denied the return
of their animal, depending on the whim of the seizing agency.
We can bet that agents who have already decided that animals
need to be removed from an owner's care will not be willing to
return those animals even in the case of subsequent
dismissal."
6)Related Legislation :
a) AB 1117 (Smyth), Chapter 553, Statutes of 2011, made
SB 1500
Page 10
changes to the penalties in animal abuse and neglect cases
as well as in animal-seizure proceedings.
b) SB 917 (Lieu), Chapter 131, Statutes of 2011, increased
the misdemeanor penalty for animal neglect in order to
conform it to other provisions of law relating to animal
abuse, and made it a crime to sell any live animal on a
street, parking lot, carnival, or board walk.
c) SB 425 (Calderon), Chapter 562, Statutes of 2011,
increased the fine for various animal fighting offenses and
applied existing forfeiture proceedings for dog fighting to
cockfighting.
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 243 (Nava), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
sought to establish a period prohibiting animal ownership
after a misdemeanor or felony conviction of animal abuse.
AB 243 was vetoed.
b) SB 318 (Calderon), Chapter 302, Statutes of 2009,
provided for the forfeiture of any property interest that
was either acquired through the commission of dogfighting,
or used to promote, further or facilitate dogfighting.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (Sponsor)
California District Attorneys Association
City of Long Beach
Humane Society of the United States
Opposition
American Herding Breed Association
California Federation of Dog Clubs
California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition
One private individual
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
SB 1500
Page 11