BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 2264 (Levine) - Victim compensation: guide, signal, and
service dogs.
Amended: August 4, 2014 Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2264 would expand eligibility for reimbursement
under the Victim Compensation Program (CalVCP) to cover costs
associated with the injury or death of a guide, signal, or
service dog as a result of a crime, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential minor increase in claims reimbursement likely
less than $50,000 (Special Fund*) annually paid to victims
to cover costs for veterinary services, replacement costs,
and other reasonable expenses as ordered by the court.
Assuming reimbursement for two victims at the maximum
reimbursement amount of $10,000 would result in additional
costs of $20,000. Arrest and conviction data from the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for the past three years
indicate only one or two arrests (and no convictions) per
year for the specified crimes potentially eligible for
compensation.
Minor ongoing costs (Special Fund*) the VCGCB to process
additional claims for compensation.
*Restitution Fund
Background: Existing law provides that it is an infraction
punishable by a fine of up to $250 for any person to permit any
dog owned, harbored, or controlled by him or her to cause injury
to, or the death of, any guide, signal, or service dog, and the
injury or death to the dog was caused by the person's failure to
exercise ordinary care in the control of his or her dog.
Under existing law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 1
year in county jail and/or a fine of between $2,500 and $5,000
if the injury or death to any guide, signal, or service dog was
caused by a person's reckless disregard in the exercise of
control over his or her dog, as specified. Additionally, a
person convicted of causing injury or death of any guide,
signal, or service dog may also be ordered to make restitution
to the person who had ownership or custody of the dog, and may
be liable for any veterinary bills and replacement costs, or
other reasonable costs deemed appropriate by the court. (PC §
600.2.)
Under existing law, any person who intentionally causes injury
to, or death of any guide, signal, or service dog, as defined,
while the dog is in the discharge of its duties is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year in
county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. (PC § 600.5(a).)
Proposed Law: This bill provides that when a person causes
injury to, or the death of, any guide, signal, or service dog
through the failure or reckless disregard to exercise control
over his or her dog or through his or her intentional actions,
the person whose dog was injured or died may apply for
compensation by the Victim Compensation and Government Claims
Board. This bill would extend eligibility criteria for
reimbursement from the CalVCP to include the expenses of
veterinary services, replacement costs, or other reasonable
expenses, as ordered by the court, in an amount not to exceed
$10,000.
Related Legislation: AB 1801 (Pavley) Chapter 322/2004 increased
the penalties and fines for interfering with a guide, signal,
or service dog, as specified, and for causing or permitting any
other dog to cause injury to, or the death of, any guide,
signal, or service dog, as defined.
Staff Comments: By expanding the crimes for which eligibility
for compensation from the CalVCP is authorized, this bill could
result in additional claim payments from the Restitution Fund.
Based on arrest and conviction data from the DOJ for the past
three years (2011 through 2013), there have been only four
arrests and no convictions for alleged violations of the
specified Penal Code provisions related to the injury or death
of a guide, signal, or service dog due to reckless disregard.
AB 2264 (Levine)
Page 2
As a result, it is estimated the number of claimants for
compensation under the provisions of this bill will be few,
resulting in a very small number of potential claims eligible
for reimbursement of less than $50,000 (Special Fund*) annually
paid to cover the costs for veterinary services, replacement
costs, and other reasonable expenses as ordered by the court.
Assuming reimbursement for two claimants at the maximum
compensation amount of $10,000 would result in additional costs
of $20,000. While reasonable expenses could potentially include
the cost of training the dog, which it has been estimated could
be in the range of $50,000, the $10,000 cap on expenses would
preclude the reimbursement for the full value of these costs.
The VCGCB would incur minor and absorbable ongoing costs to
process the additional claims for compensation.