BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1500
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1500 (Lieu)
As Amended August 6, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :39-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, | | |
| |Hagman, Mitchell, Skinner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows pre-conviction forfeiture of a defendant's
seized cat or dog 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 allows the seizing
agency to dispose of the animal.
3)Allows a seizing agency or a prosecutor, in the case of cats
and dogs, to file a petition requesting pre-conviction
forfeiture of the animal during 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.
SB 1500
Page 2
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
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.
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.
3)States that ever person who willfully abandons any animal is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
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.
5)States that the owner of a seized animal is liable for the
SB 1500
Page 3
cost of caring and treating the animal, that these costs will
be considered a lien on the animal, and that the animal will
not be returned until the charges are paid.
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.
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.
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.
9)Sets forth the notice requirements and the procedures for
animal seizure hearings.
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.
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, maintains,
has custody of, resides with or cares for any animal is guilty
of a public offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000.
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.
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.
SB 1500
Page 4
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : 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 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
SB 1500
Page 5
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 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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0004481