BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2278 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Linder |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 23, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Animal Control: Seizure of Animals: Costs
HISTORY
Source: State Humane Association of California
Prior Legislation:SB 1500 (Lieu) - Chapter 598, Stats. 2012
AB 243 (Nava) - Vetoed 2009
SB 318 (Calderon) - Chapter 302, Stats. 2009
Support: California Police Chiefs Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to clarify the procedures for
notification of animal owners regarding hearings and payment of
costs when an animal is seized or impounded.
Existing law states that ever person who willfully abandons any
animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 597s.)
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law provides that any peace officer, humane society
officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of a
stray or abandoned animal and shall provide care and treatment
for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in suitable
condition to be returned to the owner. (Penal Code § 597.1 (a).)
Existing law specifies that when the officer has reasonable
grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to
protect the health and safety of the stray or abandoned animal,
or others the officer shall immediately seize the animal. (Penal
Code § 597.1 (a).)
Existing law states that the owner of a seized animal is liable
for the full cost of caring and treating the animal, that these
costs will be considered a lien on the animal, and that the
animal will not be returned until the charges are paid, if the
seizure is upheld. (Penal Code § 597.1(a) and (b).)
Existing law requires any peace officer, humane society officer,
or animal control officer to take all injured cats and dogs
found without their owners in a public place to a veterinarian
who ordinarily treats dogs and cats for a determination of
whether the animal shall be immediately and humanely destroyed
or shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency
treatment. (Penal Code § 597.1 (c)(1).)
Existing law specifies that if the owner does not redeem the dog
or cat that has been seized, as specified, within the locally
prescribed waiting period, the veterinarian may personally
perform euthanasia on the animal, or if the animal is treated
and recovers from its injuries, the veterinarian may keep the
animal for purposes of adoption, provided the responsible animal
control agency has first been contacted and has refused to take
possession of the animal. (Penal Code § 597.1 (c)(2).)
Existing law states that if the veterinarian provides medical
treatment to a dog or cat that has been seized, as specified,
the full costs the full cost of caring for and treating that
animal shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal
shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid.
(Penal Code § 597.1(c)(4).)
Existing law provides that any peace officer, humane society
officer, or any animal control officer may, with the approval of
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
3 of ?
his or her immediate superior, humanely destroy any stray or
abandoned animal in the field in any case where the animal is
too severely injured to move or where a veterinarian is not
available and it would be more humane to euthanize the animal.
(Penal Code § 597.1 (e).)
Existing law states that whenever an officer seizes an animal as
specified, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any
criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal,
if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with
the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the
validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Penal Code §
597.1, (f).)
Existing law sets forth the notice requirements for
animal-seizure hearings. (Penal Code § 597.1 (f) and (g).)
Existing law specifies that in order to receive a postseizure
hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or
his or her agent, must request the hearing by signing and
returning a declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal
to the agency providing the notice within 10 days, including
weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice. (Penal Code §
597.1 (f)(1)(D).)
Existing law requires the postseizure hearing be conducted
within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays.
(Penal Code § 597.1, subd. (f)(2).)
Existing law states that failure of the owner or keeper, or of
his or her agent, to request or to attend a scheduled hearing
shall result in a forfeiture of any right to a postseizure
hearing or right to challenge his or her liability for costs
incurred. (Penal Code § 597.1 (f)(3).)
Existing law specifies that if it is determined in the
postseizure hearing that the seizing officer did not have
reasonable grounds seize the animal, the agency that seized the
animal shall be responsible for the costs incurred for caring
and treating the animal. (Penal Code § 597.1(f)(4).)
Existing law states that if it is determined the seizure was
justified, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the
seizing agency for the full cost of the seizure and care of the
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
4 of ?
animal, and the costs for the seizure and care of the animal
shall be a lien on the animal. (Penal Code § 597.1, (f)(4).)
Existing law provides that an animal determined to be a legally
seized animal shall not be returned to its owner until the
charges are paid and the owner demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the seizing agency or the hearing officer that the owner can
and will provide the necessary care for the animal. (Penal Code
§ 597.1 (f)(4).)
Existing law specifies that a preseizure hearing shall be
conducted within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays,
after receipt of the request. (Penal Code § 597.1 (g)(2).)
Existing law states that failure of the owner or keeper, or his
or her agent, to request or to attend a scheduled preseizure
hearing shall result in a forfeiture of any right to a
preseizure hearing or right to challenge his or her liability
for costs incurred pursuant to this section. (Penal Code § 597.1
(g)(3).)
Existing law states that the hearing officer, after the
preseizure hearing, may affirm or deny the owner's or keeper's
right to custody of the animal and, if reasonable grounds are
established, may order the seizure or impoundment of the animal
for care and treatment. (Penal Code § 597.1(g)(4).)
Existing law provides that if the charges for the seizure, and
any other permitted charges are not paid within 14 days of the
seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of
availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges
permitted under this section and take possession of the animal,
the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be
disposed of by the seizing agency. (Penal Code § 597.1(h).)
Existing law states that if the animal requires veterinary care
and the humane society or public agency is not assured, within
14 days of the seizure of the animal, that the owner will
provide the necessary care, the animal shall not be returned to
its owner and shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be
disposed of by the seizing agency. (Penal Code § 597.1 (i).)
Existing law provides that a veterinarian may humanely destroy
an impounded animal without regard to the prescribed holding
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
5 of ?
period when it has been determined that the animal has incurred
severe injuries or is incurably crippled. (Penal Code § 597.1
(i).)
Existing law states that in the case of cats and dogs, prior to
the final disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing
agency or prosecuting attorney may file a petition in a criminal
action requesting that the court issue an order forfeiting the
animal to the city, county, or seizing agency. (Penal Code §
597.1 (k)(1).)
Existing law disallows the return of a seized animal to the
owner until the seizing agency or hearing officer determines
that the animal is physically fit or until the owner shows to
the satisfaction of the hearing officer or seizing agency that
the owner can and will provide necessary care. (Penal Code §
597.1 (j).)
Existing law states that 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. (Pen. Code, § 597 (g).)
This bill requires a seizing agency to provide care and
treatment for a seized animal until the animal is placed,
returned to the owner, or euthanized.
This bill 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.
This bill requires the seizing agency to provide the owner of
the animal with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to
determine the validity of the seizure.
This bill requires the seizing agency to post notice of
postseizure hearing rights where the animal was seized, or
personally deliver notice of postseizure hearing rights
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
6 of ?
personally to the owner.
This bill specifies that in order to receive a post seizure
hearing the owner must request the hearing within 10 days of
notice.
This bill 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.
This bill 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.
This bill requires the impounding agency to continue to send
notices of additional charges for care of the animals, at the
discretion of the agency, not less than 14, and not to exceed 21
days from the date the last statement was presented.
This bill requires that if the animal was seized pursuant to a
search warrant that the court that issued or adjudicated the
warrant; give its express approval prior to the release of the
animal to the owner.
This bill provides the same requirements for notice of monetary
charges and abandonment if the animal is seized after a
preseizure hearing.
This bill requires the prosecutor's office to inform the seizing
agency if they decide not to file criminal charges based on
conduct related to the impoundment of the animal.
This bill states that the animal will be released to the owner
if a decision has been made not to file criminal charges and the
animal has not otherwise been deemed abandoned.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
7 of ?
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
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,
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
8 of ?
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:
Due to the way in which PC 597.1(h) is written - and
the absence of clear instructions to animal
control/humane societies regarding what they should do
after an animal is seized - thousands of animals across
the state are held unnecessarily in shelters for long
periods of times. This situation creates problems for
the animals, the shelter staff, and agencies' already
scarce resources.
2. Procedures for Seizing Animals
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. (Penal Code Section 597.1(a),(b).) Authorities can also
obtain a warrant upon a showing of probable cause, and then
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
9 of ?
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. (Penal Code Section 597.1(g).) 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. (Ibid.) Depending on the findings
made at the preseizure hearing, the animal can be seized and
held at that point.
3. Administrative Hearings in Animal Seizures
Under existing law, Peace Officers, Humane Society Officers, or
Animal Control Officers must take possession of the stray or
abandoned animal when the officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that very prompt action is required to protect the
health or safety of the animal. Once the animal is seized, it is
taken to a veterinarian, shelter, or clinic to be treated and
housed. Notice must be posted, or mailed, to give any owner an
opportunity for a post seizure hearing. The owner must request a
post seizure hearing within 10 calendar days from the date of
notice, or loses the opportunity for a hearing. The purpose of
the hearing is to determine if the seizure or impoundment of the
animal was valid. If the seizure is upheld the owner is
responsible for the costs of care and treatment of the animal.
Those costs are a lien against the animal. If the owner fails to
pay the costs of the seizure and animal care within 14 days of
the seizure the animal shall be deemed abandoned and may be
placed, or the seizing agency can make other arrangements for
the animal.
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. This bill provides such guidelines.
-- END --
AB 2278 (Linder ) Page
10 of ?