BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1500 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1500 (Lieu) As Amended August 23, 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. SB 1500 Page 3 5)States that the owner of a seized animal is liable for the 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 SB 1500 Page 4 to properly care for all livestock in his or her possession. 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 SB 1500 Page 5 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 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: 0005418