BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2278
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2278 (Linder) - As Amended April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill clarifies procedures for notification of animal owners
regarding hearings and payment of costs when an animal is seized
or impounded. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that when there are reasonable grounds to believe
that very prompt action is required to protect the health or
safety of an animal or the health or safety of others, the
animal shall be seized immediately and the agency must provide
care and treatment of the animal until the animal is placed,
returned to the owner, or euthanized.
AB 2278
Page 2
2)Specifies that the owner or keeper of the animal is liable to
the seizing agency for the entire cost of the seizure or
impoundment of the animal, including costs associated with
preparing and posting notices and sending statements of
charges, and requires specified notices be provided to the
owners regarding these monetary charges.
3)Provides a postseizure hearing process to determine the
validity of the seizure.
4)Requires the seizing agency to present the owner with a
statement listing all accrued charges, as provided, either at
the postseizure hearing, or by personal service, first-class
mail, or electronic mail, as specified.
5)Requires the seizing agency to provide notice that the animal
will be deemed abandoned if charges are not paid within 14
days of service of notice of charges, and that the payment of
fees does not guarantee the release of the animal, but does
allow the owner to retain an ownership interest in the animal.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown costs to local agencies, to be reimbursed by the owners
of the seized animals. However, this bill could result in
unknown reimbursable state mandated costs if the seizing agency
is unable to recover its cost from the owner after 14 days.
COMMENTS:
AB 2278
Page 3
1)Background. An animal can be seized in several different
ways. A peace officer, humane society officer, or animal
control officer can seize a stray or abandoned animal if he or
she has reasonable grounds to believe that prompt action is
required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the
health or safety of others. Authorities can also obtain a
warrant upon a showing of probable cause, and then seize the
animal pursuant to the warrant.
There is also an option to seize an animal after a hearing if
animal control observes unsuitable conditions, but these
conditions do not rise to the level of exigent circumstances
(i.e., the need for immediate seizure is not present). Animal
control can conduct a hearing prior to seizure of the animal
and before criminal proceedings for animal abuse or neglect
commence. In this situation, the owner must produce the
animal at the time of the hearing, unless before the hearing
he or she allowed the agency to view the animal or unless the
owner can provide verification that the animal was already
humanely destroyed. This hearing is referred to as a
preseizure hearing. Depending on the findings made at the
preseizure hearing, the animal can be seized and held at that
point.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 2278 clean ups current
law by clarifying the 14-day notice language and provide that
all animals seized for alleged abuse are eligible for
mandatory forfeiture after a court hearing. By making these
changes we can help avoid any undue suffering to animals that
are in shelters as well as avoid any unanticipated cost to the
owner."
Current law does not provide clear guidelines for the seizing
agency to provide notice to the owner of the animal regarding
payment of costs and when an animal is deemed abandoned by the
owner. AB 2278 provides such guidelines.
AB 2278
Page 4
3)Support: According to The State Humane Association of
California, the proposed changes in AB 2278 are not meant to
undermine or redirect the statute's original purpose of
existing law that animal shelters rely on to deal with animal
cruelty and neglect. Rather it is meant to clarify the rights
and responsibilities of both owners and agencies when an
animal is seized for abuse or neglect.
4)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1500 (Lieu), Chapter 598, Statutes of 2012, allows
pre-conviction forfeiture of an individual's seized animals
in animal abuse and neglect cases.
b) SB 318 (Calderon), Chapter 302, Statutes of 2009,
provided for the forfeiture of any property interest that
was either acquired through the commission of dogfighting,
or used to promote, further or facilitate dogfighting.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081