BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 243|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 243
Author: Nava (D), et al
Amended: 8/27/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/14/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 8/17/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, Leno, Price, Walters,
Wolk, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Oropeza, Runner, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-12, 6/2/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Animal abuse: penalties
SOURCE : Los Angeles District Attorneys Office
DIGEST : This bill prohibits, with specified exceptions,
a person who has been convicted of specified animal abuse
crimes from owning or caring for an animal for a specified
period of time.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/27/09 change the code section
added by this bill to avoid chaptering problems with
another bill.
ANALYSIS : Existing law creates a misdemeanor punishable
CONTINUED
AB 243
Page
2
by a maximum of one year in the county jail and a fine of
not more than $20,000 to maim, mutilate, torture, or wound
a living animal or maliciously or intentionally kill an
animal. (Penal Code Section 597 (a).)
Existing law states that every person having charge or
custody of an animal who overdrives; overloads; overworks;
tortures; torments; deprives of necessary sustenance,
drink, or shelter; cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly
kills; 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 is, for every such offense, guilty of a
crime punishable as an alternate misdemeanor/felony and by
a fine of not more than $20,000. (Penal Code Section 597
(b).)
Existing law mandates that whoever carries or causes to be
carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic
animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and
willfully authorizes or permits that animal to be subjected
to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind,
is guilty of a misdemeanor; and whenever any such person is
taken into custody therefore by any officer, such officer
must take charge of such vehicle and its contents, together
with the horse or team attached to such vehicle, and
deposit the same in some place of custody; and any
necessary expense incurred for taking care of and keeping
the same, is a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can
be lawfully recovered; and if such expense, or any part
thereof, remains unpaid, it may be recovered, by the person
incurring the same, of the owner of such domestic animal,
in an action therefore. (Penal Code Section 597a.)
Existing law provides that any person who causes any animal
to fight with another animal, or permits the same to be
done on any property under his/her control, or aids or
abets the fighting of any animal or is present as a
spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to
six months in the county jail; a by a fine not to exceed
$1000; or both. (Penal Code Section 597b (a).)
Existing law necessitates that any person who causes a cock
AB 243
Page
3
to fight with another cock, or permits the same to be done
on any property under his/her control, and any person who
aids or abets the fighting of any cock or is present as a
spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year; by
a fine not to exceed $5000; or by both. (Penal Code
Section 597b (b).)
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to tie or
attach or fasten any live animal to any machine or device
propelled by any power for the purpose of causing such
animal to be pursued by a dog or dogs. (Penal Code Section
597h.)
Existing law directs that any person who owns, possesses,
or trains any bird or animal with the intent that the cock
or other bird shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting
by his/her vendee or any other person is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed six months; by a fine not to exceed $1000; or
by both. (Penal Code Section 597j.)
Existing law states that every person who willfully
abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal
Code Section 597s.)
Existing law provides that any person who does any of the
following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by
imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, two or three
years; by a fine not to exceed $50,000; or by both such
fine and imprisonment: (1) owns, possesses, keeps, or
trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be
engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; (2)
for the amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with
another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other; and
(3) permits any of the aforementioned acts in violation to
be done on any premises under his/her charge or control, or
aids or abets that act. (Penal Code Section 597.5.)
Existing law declares that every owner, driver, or keeper
of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building,
enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city,
county, city and county or judicial district without proper
care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code
AB 243
Page
4
Section 597.1 (a).)
Existing law provides that any peace officer, humane
society officer, or animal control officer shall take
possession of the 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. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe
that very prompt action is required to protect the health
and safety of the animal or others the officer shall
immediately seize the animal. The cost of caring for and
treating the animal seized under this subdivision shall
constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be
returned to the owner until the charges are paid. (Penal
Code Section 597.1 (a).)
Existing law sets forth the procedure for seizure and
impoundment of an animal. (Penal Code Section 597.1
(f)-(j).)
This bill provides that if the owner has satisfied the lien
for caring for a seized animal prior to the final
disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing agency or
prosecuting attorney may file a petition in the criminal
action requesting that the court order forfeiting the
animal to the county or seizing agency prior to final
disposition of the criminal charge.
This bill provides that the court shall set a hearing on
the forfeiture provision within 14 days of the filing of
the petition.
This bill provides the petitioner shall have the burden of
establishing probable cause to believe that even in the
event of acquittal, the owner cannot and will not provide
the necessary care or that the owner will legally be
permitted to retain any of the animals in question. If the
court finds that probable cause exists, the court shall
order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the petitioner.
Existing law provides that upon the conviction of a person
charged with a violation of animal abuse, all animals
lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation
shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall
AB 243
Page
5
thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or
appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other
disposition. The court may also order, as a condition of
probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from
owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with
animals of any kind and require the convicted person to
immediately deliver all animals in his/her possession to a
designated public entity for adoption or other lawful
disposition or provide proof to the court that the person
no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals.
(Penal Code Section 597.1 (k).)
This bill provides that if probation is granted, the court
shall order, as a condition of probation, that the
convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing,
caring for, or having any contact with, animals of any
kind.
This bill provides that regardless of whether probation is
granted, the court shall require the convicted person to
immediately deliver all animals in his/her possession to a
designated public entity for adoption or other lawful
disposition or provide proof to the court that the person
no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals.
This bill provides that in the event of the acquittal or
final discharge without conviction of the arrested person,
if any of the animals are still impounded because the
animal or animals have not previously been deemed abandoned
or the lien has been satisfied and the court has not
previously ordered that any of the animals be forfeited,
the court shall, on demand, direct the release of seized or
impounded animals upon a showing of the following: (1)
proof of ownership; (2) proof that all charges for the cost
of seizure and care of the animals for the entire duration
of the matter has been paid; (3) proof that the animals are
physically fit and that the owner has demonstrated to the
seizing agency or the court that the owner can and will
provide the necessary care; and (4) proof that the owner
can legally retain and possess all animals in question.
This bill adds Section 597.9 to the Penal Code that
provides that upon a conviction of a person for a
misdemeanor violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
AB 243
Page
6
597, or of Section 597a, 597b, 597h, 597j, 597s, or 597.1,
with specified exceptions for livestock owners, 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.
This bill provides that upon a conviction for a felony
violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 597, or of
Section 597b or 597.5, with specified exception for
livestock owners, 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 10 years.
This bill provides that any person who is convicted of
violating an order issued under this section is guilty of a
public offense, which shall be punished by imprisonment in
a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not
exceeding $1000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.
This bill provides that in cases of owners of livestock as
defined in Section 14205 of the Food and Agriculture Codes
section if the defendant files a petition with the court
establishing that the imposition of the provisions of this
section would result in substantial or undue economic
hardship to the defendant's livelihood and that the
defendant has the ability to properly care for all
livestock in his/her possession.
This bill provides that the petitioner shall serve a true
copy of the petition upon the court and the prosecuting
attorney 10 calendar days prior to the requested hearing.
Upon petition from the defendant, the court shall set a
hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted
within 30 days after the filing of the petition.
This bill provides that the defendant may petition the
court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership
prohibition. The petitioner shall serve a true copy of the
petition upon the court and the prosecuting attorney 10
calendar days prior to the requested hearing. Upon a
AB 243
Page
7
petition from the defendant, the court shall set a hearing
on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 30
days after the filing of the petition. At this hearing,
the petitioner shall have the burden of establishing
probable cause to believe all of the following: (1) he/she
does not present a danger to animals; (2) he/she has the
ability to properly care for all animals in his/her
possession; and (3) he/she has successfully completed all
classes or counseling ordered by the court.
This bill provides that if the petitioner has met his/her
burden, the court may reduce the mandatory ownership
prohibition and may order that the defendant comply with
reasonable and unannounced inspections by animal control
agencies or law enforcement.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Restricts animal Minor, non-reimbursable
enforcement costs Local
ownership for individuals
convicted of certain crimes
Creates new Minor, non-reimbursable enforcement costs
Local
misdemeanor
New court order
***Unknown; potentially significant
Local/
option for forfeiture savings***
General*
of ownership
New requirements to***Negligible costs to verify proof***
General**
AB 243
Page
8
Reclaim animals
*The state currently reimburses counties for various animal
control-related mandates.
**Trial Courts Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/09)
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (source)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
California Animal Association
California Federation for Animal Legislation
City of Long Beach
City of West Hollywood
Paw PAC
The Humane Society of the United States
The Paw Project
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Currently, California Penal Code
Section 597.1 (k) states that as a condition of probation,
a court may order that a person convicted of certain animal
related crimes and placed on probation be prohibited from
owning, possessing, or having contact with animals.
However, a court has no ability to issue a "no ownership"
order for defendants convicted of felony animal cruelty
offenses who are sentenced to state prison.
The deficiencies in this law are numerous. First,
prohibiting ownership of an animal for a certain period of
time following a conviction of animal cruelty should be
mandatory rather than optional. Defendants convicted of
mistreating animals have demonstrated that they are
incapable or unwilling to care for animals properly and,
therefore, should not be permitted to own animals for a
defined period of time following their conviction.
Second, as it stands, once a defendant is off probation, a
judge has no jurisdiction or authority to order a defendant
not to own, possess, or reside with animals, despite the
fact that in some cases, it may be appropriate that a
defendant be ordered not to possess animals for a period
longer than the time he/she will be on probation. This
bill allows a court to extend the "no ownership"
AB 243
Page
9
prohibition beyond the probationary period.
Third, a judge loses his/her jurisdiction - and all ability
to order a defendant to do anything, including issuing a
"no ownership" order - once a defendant is sent to prison.
The sentencing scheme for felony animal cruelty is 16
months, two years, three years; an offender would serve
half the amount of that time in prison. If a defendant's
crime was serious enough to warrant a prison sentence,
he/she would be prohibited from owning animals following
release from custody. This bill gives a court the ability
to issue a "no ownership" order to those defendants who
have been sentenced to prison.
Finally, California law allows for an optional "no
ownership" prohibition only in cases where a defendant has
been convicted of three particular crimes. There are
several animal-related crimes currently not listed as
candidates for the probationary "no contact" condition that
clearly should be included, such as dog fighting and cock
fighting. This bill applies to all appropriate and
relevant animal-related crimes.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee,
Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, John A.
Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Yamada, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Conway,
DeVore, Gilmore, Jeffries, Logue, Miller, Niello,
Nielsen, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Block, Duvall, Garrick
RJG:do 8/28/09 Senate Floor Analyses
AB 243
Page
10
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****