BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 797 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Steinorth |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 6, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Motor Vehicles: Rescue or Provision of Care For
Animal's: Civil and Criminal Liability
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Human
Society of the United States
Prior Legislation:SB 1806 (Figueroa) - Ch. 431, Stats. 2006
Support: ASPCA; Best Friends Animal Society; California
Federation of Dog Clubs; Civil Justice Association of
California; Humane Society Veterinary Medical
Association; Marin Humane Society; San Diego District
Attorney's Office; Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs,
Inc.; San Diego Humane Society; San Francisco SPCA;
Social Compassion in Legislation; San Bernardino
County Sheriff's Department
Opposition: California Federation of Dog Clubs; The Animal
Council
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
2 of ?
The purpose of this bill is to provide that existing law does
not prevent a person from taking the reasonable steps necessary
to remove an animal from a motor vehicle if the person holds a
reasonable belief that the animal's safety is in immediate
danger from heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, lack of
food or water, or other circumstances that could reasonably be
expected to cause suffering, disability, or death to the animal,
as specified.
Existing law provides that, besides the personal rights
mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person
has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by
law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from
personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his
personal relations. (Civil Code § 43.)
Existing law provides that every person is bound, without
contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of
another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. (Civil
Code § 1708.)
Existing law provides that everyone is responsible, not only for
the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury to
another caused by his or her lack of ordinary care or skill in
the management of his or her property or person, except so far
as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care,
brought the injury upon himself or herself. (Civil Code §
1714(a).)
Existing law provides that the ownership of a thing is the right
of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of
others. In the Civil Code, the thing of which there may be
ownership is called property. (Civil Code § 654.) Existing law
provides that there may be ownership of all inanimate things
which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all
domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor
or skill as the composition of an author, the good will of a
business, trademarks and signs, and of rights created or granted
by statute. (Civil Code § 655.) Existing law provides that
property is either: (1) real or immovable; or (2) personal or
movable. (Civil Code § 657.) Existing law provides that every
kind of property that is not real is personal. (Civil Code §
663.)
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
3 of ?
Existing law, Section 597.7 of the Penal Code, provides that no
person shall leave or confine an animal in any unattended motor
vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being
of an animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or
lack of food or water, or other circumstances that could
reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death
to the animal. A person who violates this law would be subject
to specified fines and penalties. (Penal Code § 597.7(a) and
(b).)
Existing law further provides that nothing in this law prevents
a peace officer, humane officer, or an animal control officer
from removing an animal from a motor vehicle if the animal's
safety appears to be in immediate danger from heat, cold, lack
of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal. Existing law
authorizes the officer to take all steps that are reasonably
necessary for the removal of an animal from a motor vehicle,
including, but not limited to, breaking into the motor vehicle,
after a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person
responsible. Existing law further requires the officer to take
the animal to an animal shelter or other place of safekeeping
or, if the officer deems necessary, to a veterinary hospital for
treatment, and to leave a written notice on the car, as
specified, including the address of the location where the
animal can be claimed. (Penal Code § 597.7(c).)
Existing law provides that Section 597.7 does not affect in any
way existing liabilities or immunities in current law, or create
any new immunities or liabilities. (Penal Code § 597.7(c)(5).)
This bill applies the provisions, above, for peace officers,
humane officers, and animal control officers to firefighters and
other emergency responders, as well.
This bill provides that Section 597.7 does not prevent a person
from taking the reasonable steps necessary to remove an animal
from a motor vehicle if the person holds a reasonable belief
that the animal's safety is in immediate danger from heat, cold,
lack of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
4 of ?
suffering, disability, or death to the animal.
This bill further provides that a person who removes an animal
in accordance with that provision is not criminally liable for
actions taken reasonably and in good faith, if the person does
the following:
Determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise
no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle;
Contacts a local law enforcement agency, the fire
department, animal control, or the "911" emergency service
prior to forcibly entering the vehicle;
Uses no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the
animal from the vehicle than was necessary under the
circumstances; and,
Immediately turns the animal over to a representative
from law enforcement, animal control, or another emergency
responder who responds to the scene.
This bill adds a new civil statute to provide that there shall
not be any civil liability on the part of, and no cause of
action shall accrue against, a person for property damage or
trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage was caused while the
person was rescuing an animal in accordance with the standards
in the Penal Code provisions, above. This bill would further
provide that this immunity from civil liability for property
damage to a motor vehicle established does not affect a person's
civil liability or immunity from civil liability for rendering
aid to an animal.
This bill makes other conforming and technical changes.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
5 of ?
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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
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 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
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
6 of ?
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 California it is a crime to leave an animal unattended
in a vehicle under any conditions that could cause harm to
the animal - including lack of adequate ventilation, lack
of food or water, and heat.
Every year, hundreds of animals suffer, and many die, in
Los Angeles County from being left in hot vehicles. Even
when temperatures are in the low 70s and a car's windows
are left slightly open, a vehicle can heat up more than 40
degrees within an hour.
If an animal's safety appears to be in immediate danger,
California Penal Code section 597.7 allows peace officers,
humane officers, and animal control officers to take any
reasonable steps to remove the animal from a vehicle
including, but not limited to, breaking into the vehicle.
The section does not, however, allow civilians to
physically remove an animal from a vehicle, regardless how
urgent or life-threatening the situation is. Currently,
civilians in California who observe an animal in immediate
danger are not legally permitted to do anything, other than
attempt to find the animal's owner (which can prove to be
difficult, if not impossible, and time-consuming) and/or
notify the authorities.
By the time a citizen spots an animal trapped in a hot
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
7 of ?
vehicle the situation is often dire, and requires immediate
action. Because a call of this nature is not a priority
for law enforcement, peace officers may not respond in
time. Due to the very limited resources of animal control
agencies across the state, as much as animal control
officers would like to respond quickly to a call of an
animal in a hot vehicle, it is not always feasible.
One of the most common questions advocates gets from
members of the public (especially during the summer months)
is whether they can legally make entry into a vehicle to
save an animal. When they are told the law only allows law
enforcement and animal control officers to forcibly remove
an animal from a vehicle most express frustration and say
that they are often torn about what action, if any, to take
when they see an animal in a hot car; as much people would
like to help an animal trapped in a vehicle, they are often
deterred from taking action due to fear of being sued
and/or arrested.
An example of the problem with current law can best be seen
in a case involving a dog that was left unattended in a
shopping mall parking lot. In this tragic case a bystander
noticed a dog that had collapsed on the floor of a locked
vehicle on a warm summer day. The bystander called 911 and
waited for emergency service personnel to arrive. As the
bystander waited other people gathered around the vehicle
waiting for emergency services to arrive. As the
bystanders waited they watched as the animal continued to
suffer and eventually die. The bystanders told law
enforcement that they considered making entry to the
vehicle but decided against taking action because they were
afraid of being arrested or sued.
AB 797 will provide a legal framework for a Good Samaritan
to follow in order to remove an animal from a hot vehicle,
without fear of legal repercussions.
2. Effect of This Legislation
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
8 of ?
Penal Code section 597.7 makes it unlawful for a person to
"leave or confine an animal in any unattended motor vehicle
under conditions that endanger the health or well-being of an
animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or lack
of food or water, or other circumstances that could reasonably
be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death to the
animal." While this law authorizes peace officers, animal
control officers, and humane officers to take reasonable steps
to save the life of an animal trapped in an unattended vehicle,
even if they must break into the car to do so, it is silent on
the ability of citizen bystanders to act to save the life of the
animal in the same situation. To address this issue, this
legislation would make an individual immune from criminal
liability if the person breaks into the car and rescues a dog,
so long as the person is acting reasonably and in good faith,
and does the following:
Determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise
no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle;
Contacts a local law enforcement agency, the fire
department, animal control, or the "911" emergency service
prior to forcibly entering the vehicle;
Uses no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the
animal from the vehicle than was necessary under the
circumstances; and,
Immediately turns the animal over to a representative
from law enforcement, animal control, or another emergency
responder who responds to the scene.
3. Argument in Opposition
The California Federation of Dog Clubs states in opposition:
It would be impossible in most cases to determine if a
dog is in "imminent danger from heat, cold, lack of
adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other
[undefined] circumstances that could reasonably be
expected to cause suffering, disability, or death to
the animal."
When was the last time you left your dog supplied with
food and water in the car while you made a quick stop
AB 797 (Steinorth ) Page
9 of ?
at the market on a cool day? There have already been
many cases where well-intended bystanders broke into a
vehicle to "rescue" a dog, alarmed because it may be
exhibiting normal, non-distressed behavior like
panting or barking, or may be safely confined in a
crate. A "rescuer" could put himself at risk of being
bitten, put the dog at risk of being lost or hit by a
car, and put the public at risk due to an escaped
dog-at-large. The unfortunate owner could find
himself liable for unwarranted damages to his
property, suffering the loss of his pet and would have
no recourse for damage to the car or the loss or death
of his dog in the course of the "rescue." He may even
find himself sued for a dog bite situation!
This bill is of particular concern to those who
participate in dog events and activities involving
multiple dogs which may spend time being responsibly
housed in a motor home or other vehicle. Dog
enthusiasts are highly aware of the dangers of
temperature extremes in vehicles, and are rarely
guilty of putting their valued animals at-risk in such
dangerous situations.
The CFODC believes that "rescue" should be handled by
professionals who, in the vast majority of cases, can
be on the scene within minutes, and who are better
prepared and equipped to deal with assessment and
intervention in such situations.
-- END -