BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
243 (Nava)
Hearing Date: 08/17/2009 Amended: 07/16/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 243 prohibits a person who has been convicted
of specified animal abuse crimes from owning or caring for an
animal for a specified period of time. This bill provides that
upon a conviction for a misdemeanor animal abuse violation (of
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 597, or of Section 597a,
597b, 597h, 597j, 597s, or 597.1,) the court shall, in addition
to any other sentence or penalty imposed, enter an order
enjoining the person from owning, possessing, maintaining,
having custody of, residing with, or caring for any animal for a
period of not less than five years, and ten years for a felony
conviction. Violation of the provisions of this bill is
punishable by one year in county and/or a fine not exceeding
$1000. This bill provides that the court may exempt a defendant
from its provisions, as specified.
This bill provides a procedure for reclaiming an animal in the
event of an acquittal.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Restricts animal ownership for Minor,
non-reimbursable enforcement costs Local
individuals convicted of certain crimes
Creates new misdemeanor Minor, non-reimbursable
enforcement costs Local
New court order option for ***Unknown; potentially
significant savings*** Local
forfeiture of ownership
General*
New requirements to reclaim animals ***Negligible costs to
verify proof*** General**
* The state currently reimburses counties for various animal
control-related mandates.
**Trial Courts Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill requires, upon the conviction of
specified animal cruelty and abuse crimes, that the court enter
an order enjoining a convicted individual from owning or caring
for animals, as specified. Violation of this new requirement
would be misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in a county
jail and/or a fine of $1,000. The creation of a new misdemeanor
does not constitute a reimbursable mandate on local agencies.
Under existing law, local animal shelters must provide care for
animals confiscated from individuals charged with animal abuse
crimes. There is an initial court hearing to ensure the animal
was seized appropriately and, if it was, it remains with the
seizing agency throughout the trial. Animals that are evidence
in a trial cannot be euthanized, sold, or
Page 2
AB 243 (Nava)
given away, and must be kept by the local agency throughout the
court proceedings, unless an owner relinquishes ownership of the
animal. This bill does not alter the
requirements and guidlines for the care of these animals. Owners
are notified that they must reimburse local agencies for the
care of their animals, and a failure to pay ongoing costs
constitutes a lien on reclaiming the animal. If an owner does
not reimburse the facility, he or she will forfeit ownership
rights, and the animal in custody can be sold.
This bill would allow a seizing agency or prosecuting attorney
to file a petition asking the court to order termination of
ownership rights over a seized animal, prior to final
disposition of the criminal charge. The prosecuting attorney or
seizing agency would claim that the owner should not have the
animal or animals returned regardless of the criminal charge
outcome. This provision would likely be most often used in cases
in which animals are seized because an owner exceeds the number
allowed within the county. For example, in Los Angeles County, a
person may only own 3 dogs. If 20 dogs are seized from a
residence pending abuse charges, regardless of the outcome of
the criminal charges, the owner cannot have more than 3 dogs
returned because of the county ordinance. To the degree that
these petitions are granted, some savings would likely result
from lifting the restriction on the seizing agency to house the
animal for the duration of the court proceedings.
This bill would also require that, in the event that he or she
is acquitted of criminal charges, the owner of a seized animal
must provide proof of meeting specified conditions in order to
reclaim the animal. Among these conditions is proof of having
reimbursed the appropriate local agency for care of the animal.
Costs for the courts to verify the required proof would be minor
both in court time and in frequency. It is rare that an owner
would meet all four conditions that would result in this
situation: (a) having not had the animal returned during the
preliminary hearing; (b) being acquitted or having the case
dismissed; (c) having not relinquished ownership for failure to
pay shelter costs; and (d) seek the return of the animals.