BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1824 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Chang |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Guide, Signal, or Service Dogs: Injury or Death
HISTORY
Source: California Council of the Blind
Prior Legislation: AB 2264 (Levine) - Ch. 502, Stats. 2014
AB 1801 (Pavley) - Ch. 322, Stats. 2004
Support: Canine Companions for Independence; Guide Dogs of
Texas, Inc.; California State Board of Guide Dogs for
the Blind; State Humane Association of California; two
individuals
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the situations in which an
individual can be charged with causing injury to, or the death
of, any guide, signal, or service dog.
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law defines "guide dog" as any guide dog that was
trained by a licensed person, as specified. (Civil Code §54.1
(6)(C)(i).)
Existing law defines a "signal dog" as any dog trained to alert
an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired to intruders or
sounds. (Civil Code § 54.1 (6)(C)(ii).)
Existing law defines a "service dog" as any dog individually
trained to the requirements of the individual with a disability
including, but not limited to, minimal protection work, rescue
work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items. (Civil
Code § 54.1 (6)(C)(iii).)
Existing law provides that it is a crime for any person to
permit any dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by him or
her to cause injury to or the death of any guide, signal, or
service dog, while the guide, signal, or service dog is in
discharge of its duties: (Penal Code § 600.2 (a).)
Existing law provides that a violation of this section is an
infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty
dollars ($250) if the injury or death to any guide, signal, or
service dog is caused by the person's failure to exercise
ordinary care in the control of his or her dog; (Penal Code §
600.2 (b).)
Existing law provides that a violation of this section is a
misdemeanor if the injury or death to any guide, signal, or
service dog is caused by the person's reckless disregard in the
exercise of control over his or her dog, under circumstances
that constitute such a departure from the conduct of a
reasonable person as to be incompatible with a proper regard for
the safety and life of any guide, signal, or service dog. A
violation of this subdivision shall be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a
fine of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)
nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or both. The court
shall consider the costs ordered when determining the amount of
any fines; and (Penal Code § 600.2 (c).)
Existing law provides that in any case in which a defendant is
convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
3 of ?
ordered to make restitution to the person with a disability who
has custody or ownership of the guide, signal, or service dog
for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it
is disabled or killed, or other reasonable costs deemed
appropriate by the court. The costs ordered pursuant to this
subdivision shall be paid prior to any fines. The person with
the disability may apply for compensation by the California
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, in an amount
not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (Penal Code §
600.2 (d).)
Existing law specifies that any person who intentionally causes
injury to or the death of any guide, signal, or service dog,
while the dog is in discharge of its duties, is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or by both a fine and imprisonment. The court
shall consider the costs ordered when determining the amount of
any fines: (Penal Code § 600.5, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides for any case in which a defendant is
convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be
ordered to make restitution to the person with a disability who
has custody or ownership of the dog for any veterinary bills and
replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed, or
other reasonable costs deemed appropriate by the court; and
(Penal Code § 600.5 (b).)
Existing law provides the costs ordered pursuant to this
subdivision shall be paid prior to any fines. The person with
the disability may apply for compensation by the California
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board pursuant to
Chapter 5 in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars
($10,000). (Penal Code §600.5 (b).)
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 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
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
4 of ?
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 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, shall, upon conviction of a felony under this
section, in addition and consecutive, be punished by an
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).)
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
5 of ?
Exiting 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. (Pen. Code, § 597 (c).)
Existing law requires punishment as a felony by, 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 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
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
6 of ?
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.
(Penal Code § 597(h).)
This bill deletes, specified crimes against guide, signal, or
service dogs, the requirement that the dog be in discharge of
its duties when the injury or death occurs and would make these
crimes applicable to the injury or death of dogs that are
enrolled in a training school or program for guide, signal, or
service dogs, as specified.
This bill requires that the person willfully, knowingly or
recklessly cause injury or death to a guide, signal or service
dog is guilty of misdemeanor.
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
7 of ?
This bill requires the defendant, convicted of either crime, to
also make restitution to the person for medical or
medical-related expenses, or for loss of wages or income,
incurred by the person as a direct result of the crime.
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
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
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
8 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 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 This Bill
According to the author:
In 2014, the legislature approved AB 2264 (Levine) which
amended Penal Codes 600.2 and 600.5 relating to guide dogs.
AB 2264 expanded eligibility for access to the victim's
compensation fund for the owners of guide/service dogs when
their dog is injured or killed. Current law under Penal Code
600.2 states that they are eligible for reimbursement when
their guide/service dog is killed or injured by another dog
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
9 of ?
while Penal Code 600.5 applies to when the guide/service dog
is intentionally killed or injured. Both code sections
however stipulate that the guide/service dog must be in
discharge of its duties for the victim to be eligible for
reimbursement.
Under current law, victims are eligible for reimbursement
for veterinary bills and replacement costs if the dog is
disabled or killed, or other costs as deemed appropriate by
the court.
Since the adoption of these regulations, members of the
disabled community have developed concerns that they
and their dogs may not be fully protected or properly
compensated
2. The Cost of Injury to Guide and Service Dogs
There is a high cost if a guide dog must be retired due to
attacks by people and/or their unleashed dogs. According to The
Seeing Eye, which provides specially bred and trained dog guides
for blind persons, it costs $50,000 to breed, raise, and train a
dog. It takes approximately 18 months to adequately train a
seeing eye dog, followed by an additional month with the
disabled person to which they will be paired; the program
provides a blind person with airfare, room and board for four
weeks, during the course of instruction, as well as the dog's
equipment; and provide follow-up services for life. A dog will
work on average eight years.
3. Changes to Provisions for Crimes Against a Guide Dog
Existing law makes it a wobblette for any person to permit any
dog to attack a guide dog and a misdemeanor for any person to
intentionally cause injury or death to a guide dog. This bill
deletes the requirement from both provisions that the dog be in
the discharge of the duties at the time of the injury or death.
It also provides that to be convicted of the misdemeanor the
person must willfully, knowingly or recklessly cause the injury
or death of the dog. It also provides that restitution includes
medical or medical-related expenses that are a direct result of
a violation.
4. Support
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
10 of ?
According to the California Council of the Blind:
Under existing law, it is an infraction or a
misdemeanor for any person to permit any dog which is
owned, harbored, or controlled by him or her to cause
injury to or the death of any guide, signal, or service
dog while the dog is not engaged in these duties. Under
these circumstances, it is very difficult for guide,
signal, or service dog users to recover the costs
incurred due to these attacks. This bill would expand
these provisions by eliminating the requirements that
the guide, signal, or service dog be in discharge of
its duties, thus allowing recovery in those situations.
Existing law requires a person convicted of these
crimes to make restitution for specified costs incurred
by the handler of the guide, signal, or service dog.
This bill would expand these restitution provisions to
cover medical or medical-related expenses and loss of
wages or income."
5. Opposition
The ACLU opposes this bill stating:
Under existing law, and under the prior version of AB
1824, in order to convict a person of a violation of
Penal Code section 600.5 (causing injury or death to a
guide, signal, or service dog) the person must
"intentionally" cause the injury or death. (Penal Code
§600.5, subd. (a).) The existing standard is the
appropriate mens rea standard for this offense. It
requires the prosecution to show that the defendant
engaged in the prohibited conduct with the conscious
objective to cause the injury to death to a service dog.
Consistent with due process principle, this standard
helps to ensure that people are punished for such
conduct only when they intend to do harm. As amended, AB
1824 would provide that a person need only "willfully,
knowingly, or recklessly" act, in order to be convicted
of a misdemeanor. One can image a situation where a
driver acts recklessly and hits a service dog that run
into the street. While the driver's conduct is certainly
AB 1824 (Chang ) Page
11 of ?
troubling, such conduct should not rise to a level of
criminality when the person had no intent harm the dog
and may have had no idea the dog was a service animal.
Lowering the mens rea standard unnecessarily erodes
protections for criminal defendants and is not
appropriate for the offense at hand.
-- END -