BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1500|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1500
Author: Lieu (D)
Amended: 8/23/12
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/17/12
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 5/29/12
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk,
Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 8/13/12 - See last page for vote
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 8/27/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Seized and abandoned animals: full costs:
forfeiture
SOURCE : California Animal Control Directors Association
Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill makes a number of clarifying changes
to provisions dealing with the seizure of animals.
Assembly Amendments (1) make technical and clarifying
changes that include specifically when an animal may be
disposed of, and (2) add double-jointing language with SB
1162 (Runner).
ÝNOTE: This bill was returned to add double-jointing
language.]
ANALYSIS : Existing law creates 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 maliciously or intentionally kill an
animal. (Penal Code (PEN) Section 597 (a))
Existing law 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. (PEN Section 597 (b))
Existing law mandates that whoever carries or causes to be
carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic
animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and
willfully authorizes or permits that animal to be subjected
to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind,
is guilty of a misdemeanor; and whenever any such person is
taken into custody therefore by any officer, such officer
must take charge of such vehicle and its contents, together
with the horse or team attached to such vehicle, and
deposit the same in some place of custody; and any
necessary expense incurred for taking care of and keeping
the same, is a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can
be lawfully recovered; and if such expense, or any part
thereof, remains unpaid, it may be recovered, by the person
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
3
incurring the same, of the owner of such domestic animal,
in an action therefor. (PEN Section 597a)
Existing law provides that any person who causes any animal
to fight with another animal, or permits the same to be
done on any property under his/her control, or aids or
abets the fighting of any animal or is present as a
spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to
six months in the county jail, by a fine not to exceed
$1,000, or both. (PEN Section 597b (a))
Existing law necessitates that any person who causes a cock
to fight with another cock, or permits the same to be done
on any property under his or her control, and any person
who aids or abets the fighting of any cock or is present as
a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, by
a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both. (PEN Section 597b
(b))
Existing law makes it unlawful 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. (PEN Section 597h)
Existing law directs that any person who owns, possesses,
or trains any bird or animal with the intent that the cock
or other bird shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting
by his/her vendee or any other person is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed six months, by a fine not to exceed $1,000,
or by both. (PEN Section 597j)
Existing law states that every person who willfully
abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (PEN
Section 597s)
Existing law provides that any person who does any of the
following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by
imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, two or three
years; by a fine not to exceed $50,000; or by both such
fine and imprisonment:
Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
4
intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of
fighting with another dog.
For the amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with
another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
Permits any of the aforementioned acts in violation to be
done on any premises under his or her charge or control,
or aids or abets that act. (PEN Section 597.5)
Existing law declares that every owner, driver, or keeper
of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building,
enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city,
county, city and county or judicial district without proper
care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (PEN
Section 597.1 (a))
Existing law provides that any peace officer, humane
society officer, or animal control officer shall take
possession of the 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. The cost of caring for and
treating the animal seized under this subdivision or
pursuant to a search warrant shall constitute a lien on the
animal, and the animal shall not be returned to the owner
until the charges are paid. (PEN Section 597.1 (a))
Existing law generally provides that peace officers, humane
officers and animal control officers can take control of a
sick or abandoned animal and cause the animal to be killed
or treated. The officer may seize the animal when he or
she has reasonable grounds to believe that the seizure is
necessary for the safety of the animal or others. The law
further provides that the cost of caring for and treating
any animal properly seized under this subdivision or
pursuant to a search shall constitute a lien on the animal,
and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the
charges are paid. (PEN Section 597.1 (b))
Existing law provides that any peace officer, human society
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
5
officer or animal control officer shall convey all injured
cats and dogs found without their owner in a public place
directly to a veterinarian. The cost of caring for and
treating any animal seized shall constitute a lien on the
animal and the animal shall not be returned to the owner
until the charges are paid. (PEN Section 597.1 (c))
This bill clarifies that when costs are owed they are the
"full" costs.
Existing law sets forth the procedure for seizure and
impoundment of an animal including the right to a
post-seizure hearing and the requirement that if the
seizure was justified the owner or keeper shall be liable
to the seizing agency for costs. (PEN Section 597.1 (f))
This bill clarifies that when costs are owed, they are the
"full" costs.
Existing law provides that a seized animal shall not be
returned to the owner until the charges are paid and 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. (PEN
Section 597.1(f)(4))
This bill provides instead that a seized animal shall not
be returned to its owner until the charges are paid and the
owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the seizing
agency or the hearing officer that the owner can and will
provide the necessary care and does not present a danger to
the animal.
Existing law provides that if any animal is properly seized
under this section or pursuant to a search warrant, the
owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing
agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal.
(PEN Section 597.1(h))
This bill clarifies that the person shall be liable for the
"full" cost of the seizure and care of the animal.
Existing law provides that if the charges for the seizure
or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this
section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
6
the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the
animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under
this section and takes possession of the animal, the animal
shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed
of by the impounding officer. (PEN Section 597.1(h))
Existing law provides that if the seized animal requires
veterinary care and the humane society is not assured
within 14 days of the seizure of the animal, the owner will
provide the necessary care, the animal shall not be
returned to the owner and shall be deemed to have been
abandoned, and may be disposed of by the impounding
officer. (PEN Section 597.1(i))
This bill instead clarifies that the animal shall be deemed
abandoned and may be disposed of by the seizing agency.
Existing law provides that no animal properly seized under
this section or pursuant to a search warrant shall be
returned to its owner until, in the determination of the
seizing agency or hearing officer, the animal is physically
fit or the owner can demonstrate to the seizing agency's or
hearing officer's satisfaction that the owner can and will
provide the necessary care. (PEN Section 597.1(j))
This bill provides instead that no animal seized under this
section or pursuant to a search warrant shall be returned
to its owner until the owner can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the seizing agency or hearing officer that
the owner can and will provide the necessary care for the
animal.
This bill provides that nothing in this subdivision is
intended to authorize a seizing agency or prosecuting
attorney to file a petition to determine an owner's ability
to legally retain an animal if a petition has previously
been filed pursuant to this subdivision.
This bill creates a new subdivision (k) stating prior to
the final disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing
agency or prosecuting attorney may file a petition in a
criminal action requesting that, prior to that final
disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal
to the city, county or seizing agency. The petition shall
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
7
serve a true copy of the petition upon the defendant and
prosecuting attorney. Upon receipt of the petition, the
court shall set a hearing on the petition and it shall be
held within 14 days of the filing of the petition, or as
soon as possible. The petition shall have the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that even
in the event of an acquittal of the criminal charges,
either (1) the owner cannot or will not provide the
necessary care for the animal in question, or (2) the owner
will not legally be permitted to retain the animal in
question. If the court finds that the petitioner has met
its burden by establishing either of the above, the court
shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as
sought by the petition.
Existing law provides that upon the conviction of a person
charged with a violation of animal abuse, all animals
lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation
shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall
thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or
appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other
disposition. The court may also order, as a condition of
probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from
owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with
animals of any kind and require the convicted person to
immediately deliver all animals in his or her possession to
a designated public entity for adoption or other lawful
disposition, or provide proof to the court that the person
no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals.
(PEN Section 597.1 (k))
This bill renumbers this subdivision to (l) and provides
that in the event of the acquittal or final discharge
without conviction of the person charged, if the animal is
still impounded, the animal has not been previously deemed
abandoned and the court has not ordered the animal to be
forfeited, the court shall on demand direct the release of
seized or impounded animals to the defendant upon a showing
of proof of ownership.
Existing law provides that a person convicted of specified
misdemeanor animal abuse sections who owns, possesses,
maintains, etc., an animal within five years of conviction
is guilty of a public offense punishable by a fine of
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
8
$1,000. (PEN Section 597.9(a))
Existing law provides that a person convicted of specified
felony animal abuse sections who owns, possesses,
maintains, etc., an animal within 10 years of conviction is
guilty of a public offense punishable by a fine of $1,000.
(PEN Section 597.9(b))
Existing law provides that in the cases of owners of
livestock a court may, in the interest of justice, exempt a
defendant from the prohibition of owning animals as it
would apply to livestock, if the defendant files a petition
with the court to establish that the imposition of the
provisions of this section 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/her possession. (PEN Section 597.9
(c)(1))
This bill requires the livestock owner to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the imposition would be
a substantial or undue economic hardship.
Existing law provides that a defendant may petition the
court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership
prohibition. At a hearing on the petition, the petitioner
shall have the burden of establishing probable cause to
believe all of the following:
He/she does not present a danger to animals.
He/she has the ability to properly care for all animals
in his/her possession.
He/she has successfully completed all classes or
counseling ordered by the court. (PEN Section 597.9
(d)(1))
This bill changes the burden to a preponderance of the
evidence.
This bill is double-jointed with SB 1162 (Runner).
Background
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
9
According to the author's office, in addition to making
animal neglect a crime, PEN Section 597.1 describes
circumstances under which animals can be seized by either
animal control officers or a peace officer, and provides
the administrative procedures that must be followed by the
seizing agency to ensure the owner's due process rights.
Additionally, PEN Section 597.1 grants municipal agencies
the ability to recover the costs of caring for and housing
animals that were seized due to the action (or inaction) of
their owners.
Every week across the state animal control agencies return
animals to owners who have mistreated their animals due to
existing language in PEN Section 597.1. Under current law,
an animal must be returned to its owner if the animal is
physically fit or the owner demonstrates that they can and
will provide necessary care for the animal. The use of the
term "or" results
in animals who have been nursed back to care by the seizing
agency being returned to an owner - who abused the animal
resulting in the seizure - because the animal was now fit.
The usage of the term "or" has resulted in many animals
being returned to the same harmful environments with their
abusers.
After an animal has been seized and the seizure has been
deemed to be proper, the seized animal's owner is liable to
the seizing agency for the cost of caring for the animal.
These costs are considered a lien on the animal. Currently,
PEN Section 597.1 is not clear about when an animal control
agency is supposed to send out "lien letters" to the seized
animal's owner. Due to this confusion, owners often stop
paying the cost of care and treatment of their animal and
the animal becomes abandoned. Yet, the agencies continue
to hold animals until a criminal case has ended. Because
of this owner's often receive a one-lump-sum bill, which
can be extremely large. When this happens many owners are
unable to pay such a large bill and surrender the animal to
the seizing agency which results in many animals being
unnecessarily housed in a shelter for months and possibly
made unadoptable due to lack of exercise and socialization
during its stay in the shelter. When this happens the
animal must be euthanized.
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
10
Current law does not provide a mechanism for the seizing
agency or prosecutor to file a petition as part of a
criminal action requesting the court order that the
animal(s) be forfeited to the petitioning agency prior to
the final disposition of the criminal case if no matter the
outcome of their criminal case, the owner is not legally
entitled to keep the animal (i.e. animal hoarders or owners
of illegal animals). This lack of a mechanism results in
agencies unnecessarily holding onto animals when they could
be adopting them to families or placing them in appropriate
facilities (zoos, museums, wild game preserves, etc.).
Aside from the cost of holding these animals, it is unfair
to the seized animal that is stuck in a cage and results in
other animals having to be euthanized due to lack of space.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/12)
California Animal Control Directors Association (co-source)
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (co-source)
California District Attorneys Association
City of Long Beach
Humane Society of the U.S.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/12)
American Herding Breed Association
California Federation of Dog Clubs
California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
11
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. The current
in-print version of SB 1500 attempts to fix this
loophole by changing the word "or" to "and" in order
to make both the physical fitness of the animal and
the owner's ability to care for it necessary criteria
in order to return the animal. Amendments to SB 1500
will change this fix slightly by removing the physical
fitness criterion altogether, and requiring return of
the animal only if the seizing agency or hearing
officer determines that the owner can and will provide
the necessary care.
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. Also, this
bill clarifies the lien procedure for payment that
ensures collection of payment while also protecting
the accused's right.
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
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
12
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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Federation of
Dog Clubs argues:
This bill would allow for unprecedented abuse by agencies
empowered with animal seizure authority. Public or
private animal 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 or acquittal.
This bill further declares that the owner or keeper is
not entitled to an administrative postseizure hearing
with the seizing agency. It expands on the
unconstitutional tenets of last session's AB 1117
(Smyth), which requires "additional showings" for animal
owners to retrieve animals that were unjustly seized.
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
13
These assaults on ownership rights are being
incrementally presented by the radical animal rights
group, the Humane Society of the US, which is an avowed
anti-hunting, anti-farming, and anti-animal ownership
group. The California Federation of Dog Clubs, as a
grassroots group dedicated to preserving the human animal
bond in our state, finds such proposals a blatant affront
to the principles of due process in justice and
protection of individual rights upon which our country
was founded.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 8/13/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Buchanan, Donnelly, Mansoor, Valadao,
John A. Pérez
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 8/27/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell,
Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen,
Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
CONTINUED
SB 1500
Page
14
NO VOTE RECORDED: Buchanan, Mansoor, John A. Pérez
RJG:m 8/28/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED