BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 794 Hearing Date: June 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Linder |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 8, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Acts Against Law Enforcement Animals
HISTORY
Source: California Mounted Officers Association
Prior Legislation:AB 667 (Smyth) - 2007-08, died in Assembly
Public Safety
Support: American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals; California Association of Highway Patrolmen;
California Police Chiefs Association; Peace Officers
Research Association of California; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association; Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors; One Individual
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand criminal acts against law
enforcement animals to include offenses against animals used by
volunteers, acting under the direct supervision of a peace
officer, as specified.
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law provides that any person who maliciously strikes,
beats, kicks, stabs, shoots, or throws, hurls, or projects any
rock or object at any horse being used by a peace officer, or
any dog being supervised by a peace officer in the performance
of his or her duties is a public offense. If the injury
inflicted is a serious injury, as specified, the person shall be
punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section
1170 for 16 months, two or three years, or in a county jail for
not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand
dollars, or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the injury
inflicted is not a serious injury, the person shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one year,
or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both a
fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code § 600(a).)
Existing law states that any person who willfully and
maliciously interferes with, or obstructs, any horse or dog
being used by a peace officer or any dog being supervised by a
peace officer in the performance of his or her duties by
frightening, teasing, agitating, harassing, or hindering the
horse or dog shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail
not exceeding one year; by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by
both. (Penal Code § 600(b).)
Existing law provides that any person who, with the intent to
inflict serious injury or death, personally causes the death,
destruction, or serious physical injury of a horse or dog being
used by, or under the direction of, a peace officer shall,
shall, upon conviction of a felony under this section, in
addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the
felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for one year. (Penal
Code § 600(c).)
Existing law defines "serious injury" to include bone fracture,
loss or impairment of function of any bodily member, wounds
requiring extensive suturing, or serious crippling. (Penal Code
§ 600(c).)
Existing law provides that any person with the intent to inflict
that injury, personally causes great bodily injury to a person
not an accomplice, must, upon conviction of a felony under this
section, in addition and consecutive, be punished by an
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
3 of ?
additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for two
years unless the conduct can be punished under Penal Code
section 12022.7 or it is an element of a separate offense for
which the person is convicted. (Penal Code § 600(d).)
Existing law requires the defendant to make restitution to the
agency owning the animal and employing the peace officer for any
veterinary bills, replacement costs of the animal if it is
disabled or killed, and the salary of the peace officer for the
period of time his or her services are lost to the agency.
(Penal Code § 600(e).)
Existing law provides that when battery is committed against any
person, including a peace officer and serious bodily injury is
inflicted on the person, the battery is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years
or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(Penal Code § 243(d).)
Existing law specifies the actions of a person who maliciously
and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living
animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal as a
criminal offense. (Penal Code § 597.)
Existing law specifies when a person overdrives, overloads,
drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives
of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats,
mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, 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; and whoever, having the charge or
custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects
any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary
cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or
fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter
or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides, or
otherwise uses the animal when unfit for labor as a criminal
offense. (Penal Code § 597(b).)
Existing law specifies the actions of a person who maliciously
and intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures any mammal,
bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish, as specified as a criminal
offense. (Penal Code § 597(c).)
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
4 of ?
Existing law requires punishment as a felony by imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not
more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by
a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment for violations of Penal Code
section 597(animal cruelty). (Penal Code § 597(d).)
Existing law specifies that upon the conviction of a person
charged with a violation of this section by causing or
permitting an act of cruelty, as specified, all animals lawfully
seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace
officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of a pound or
animal regulation department of a public agency shall be
adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be
awarded to the impounding officer for proper disposition. A
person convicted of a violation of this section by causing or
permitting an act of cruelty, as specified, shall be liable to
the impounding officer for all costs of impoundment from the
time of seizure to the time of proper disposition. (Penal Code §
597(g).)
Existing law specifies that mandatory seizure or impoundment
shall not apply to animals in properly conducted scientific
experiments or investigations performed under the authority of
the faculty of a regularly incorporated medical college or
university of this state. (Penal Code § 597(g).)
Existing law requires that if a defendant is granted probation
for a conviction animal cruelty, the court shall order the
defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling, as
determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior
or conduct disorders. If the court finds that the defendant is
financially unable to pay for that counseling, the court may
develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's
ability to pay. The counseling shall be in addition to any other
terms and conditions of probation, including any term of
imprisonment and any fine. If the court does not order custody
as a condition of probation for a conviction under this section,
the court shall specify on the court record the reason or
reasons for not ordering custody. This does not apply to cases
involving police dogs or horses as described in Section 600.
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
5 of ?
(Penal Code § 597(h).)
This bill expands crimes against law enforcement animals to
include acts carried out against a horse or dog being used by,
or under the supervision of, a volunteer, who is acting under
the direct supervision of a peace officer in the discharge or
attempted discharge of his or her assigned volunteer duties.
This bill expands the restitution requirements for defendants
convicted of those acts to include a volunteer who is acting
under the direct supervision of a peace officer using their own
horse or dog. In such a case, the defendant would be required
to make restitution to the volunteer, or the agency that
provides, or individual that provides, veterinary care for the
horse or dog.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity." (
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
6 of ?
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for Legislation
According to the author:
In Penal Code 600, it is an offense to willfully,
maliciously harm, injure, obstruct, or interfere with a
horse or a dog under the supervision of a law
enforcement officer in the discharge of official
duties. These violations are punishable by a fine
and/or imprisonment. Punishment depends on the
seriousness of the injury to the animal. Upon
conviction, a defendant must also pay restitution for
damages. Unfortunately, Penal Code 600 only covers
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
7 of ?
animals that are directly being used by an employed
peace officer.
AB 794 would add to Penal Code section 600, to
additionally include animals that are being used by
volunteer peace officers. With budgets being stretched
at the local level and efforts being made to engage
with citizens, many counties are creating more
volunteer opportunities to work with law enforcement.
For many years Riverside County has worked with locals
in Norco to take advantage of their love of horses by
having the Mounted Posse. These volunteers serve the
region by observing and reporting directly to the
Sheriff's office. While the volunteers themselves are
protected from harm under state, their horses are not.
AB 794 will ensure that those who volunteer to help
protect their communities will also have protections
for their animals afforded to law enforcement animals.
2. Effect of Legislation
A number of local law enforcement agencies are utilizing
volunteers to act as the agencies' "eyes and ears." For
example, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department has the
Sheriff's Mounted Posse. Mounted citizen volunteers provide
assistance to law enforcement in Riverside County by being "eyes
and ears." They do not have the powers or authority vested in
peace officers. Citizen volunteers are directed to contact law
enforcement if they witness a crime or suspicious activity.
Citizen volunteers are not expected to take direct action on any
potential criminal activity. (http://www.
riversidesheriff.org/volunteer/posse.asp.)
The Pasadena Police Department also has a Volunteer Mounted
Unit:
Non-sworn civilian volunteer group that provides a
patrol service in the more remote park areas of the
City, including the Arroyo Seco Park and the Rose
Bowl. The Unit acts as "eyes and ears" for the
department by reporting violations and other
circumstances that may be a threat to public safety.
The Volunteer Mounted Unit was originally formed to
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
8 of ?
assist at the Rose Bowl in patrolling parking lots
during the 1984 Olympics. It was formalized and
adopted by the Police Department in 1985 when the
department recognized the need for passive patrol in
the remote hiking and riding trail areas not readily
accessible by patrol units. Since then, Volunteer
Mounted Unit members have donated thousands of hours
creating a police presence and providing an important
link between the department and the community that
utilizes the parks.
(http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/police/mounted_volunteers/.)
This legislation seeks to protect the animals of these Volunteer
Mounted Unit volunteers by making it a crime to harm or harass
these animals. This bill, additionally, expands the restitution
requirements so that a volunteer would be eligible for
restitution.
3. Argument in Support
According to the California Mounted Officers Association (CMOA):
The CMOA Board of Directors, who represent over 250
CMOA members who are comprised of mounted law
enforcement personnel and mounted law enforcement
volunteers, whole heartedly support and sponsor
AB-794.
The CMOA recognizes that under the current law of
Penal Code 600, law enforcement volunteers and their
mounts do not have any protection. Also currently,
law enforcement personnel cannot take any legal action
in regard to someone who would assault the mount of a
mounted law enforcement volunteer.
CMOA understands the dedication, time, personal
expense, and providing their own mounts that law
enforcement mounted volunteers give to their
communities across the state every day. AB-794 helps
protect these dedicated volunteers and their mounts
who provide volunteer service to their communities.
AB-794 will also allow law enforcement to enforce the
new amended PC 600.
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
9 of ?
4. Argument in Opposition
According to the California Public Defenders Association,
The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA), a
statewide organization of public defenders, private
defense counsel, and investigators is sorry to inform
you of our opposition to AB 794 by Assemblymember
Linder.
Under current law, Penal Code § 600, it is a felony to
assault or harm a horse or dog that is under the
supervision of a peace officer in the discharge or
attempted discharge of his or her duties. It is also a
misdemeanor to harass, interfere with, or obstruct
these animals.
This bill would modify PC § 600 to include "a
volunteer police observer," and require restitution
"to a volunteer police observer who is using his or
her horse or supervising his or her dog in the
performance of his or her assigned duties . . .."
(Emphasis added).
This bill expands the scope of a crime, and extends it
to any number of "volunteer police observers." This
term is not defined in the statute, nor is there a
reference to a definition in another statute. This is
likely because the term is not defined, and is left to
the individual law enforcement agencies to determine
the definition, qualification, and training of these
volunteers.
Likewise, it is troubling that a volunteer can bring
"his or her dog or horse" to assist in law enforcement
activities, without any parameters setting out the
qualifications of the animal. It takes a very
disciplined and well-trained animal to be of
assistance to law enforcement. Citizens should not
bear the risk of becoming involved in an incident with
a poorly-trained animal, and then be criminally
charged because of behavior that the animal may
responsible for. For example, an overly-sensitive
AB 794 (Linder ) Page
10 of ?
horse may become spooked from background noise and
commotion during an incident, but an individual may be
charged because of the horse's behavior.
Because this bill is vague and criminalizes
potentially innocuous behavior, it should be opposed.
-- END -