BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 2243 (Smyth)
As Amended May 6, 2010
Hearing Date: June 15, 2010
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TW:jd
SUBJECT
Civil Law: Search and Rescue Dogs
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides protection for peace officers and
firefighters of search and rescue canine units against
discrimination by lodging and eating establishments and public
transportation. This bill, sponsored by the California
Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), would extend this
protection to a handler of a search and rescue dog. This bill
also would provide that peace officers, firefighters, and
handlers of search and rescue dogs shall not be denied services
from these businesses based on the presence of the search and
rescue dog. This bill would extend these protections to
protection to non-declared emergency aid and training
situations.
BACKGROUND
Fire and law enforcement agencies deploy dogs and their human
handlers outside of their jurisdictions to assist with the
search and rescue of people who are buried under debris, trapped
in mines, lost in the wilderness, drowned in waterways, or
otherwise missing. When these canines and their handlers are
deployed, they often travel long distances and must stay in
hotels and other lodging. Often these highly trained canines
cannot be left alone or in vehicles because of high temperatures
or other conditions, and must accompany their handlers into
restaurants or other public buildings. Currently, existing law
only provides special privileges for these dogs when there is a
declared disaster and the dogs are in the presence of peace
(more)
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 2 of ?
officers and firefighters. In many circumstances, a disaster
has not been declared but the dogs are requested through the
state's mutual aid system, which is managed by Cal EMA.
A majority of these canines are handled by volunteers and not
actual employees of the fire or law enforcement agencies they
serve. Members of these volunteer search and rescue (SAR)
groups are registered as Disaster Service Workers under state
law and must meet strict standards established by Cal EMA. When
requested by local jurisdictions, these SAR volunteers are
dispatched by Cal EMA to support mutual aid operations in a city
or county. Teams are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
to respond to local, state, and federal agencies.
In 2008, the Legislature acted to protect a peace officer or
firefighter with a trained service dog from discrimination by
lodging and eating establishments, and public transportation,
during a declared emergency. (AB 2131 (Niello, Ch. 226, Stats.
2008).) This bill would extend this protection to handlers of
search and rescue dogs and provide that peace officers,
firefighters, and handlers with search and rescue dogs shall not
be denied service by lodging and eating establishments or public
transportation on the basis of the presence of the search and
rescue dog.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a peace officer or firefighter
assigned to a canine unit, who is assigned to duty away from his
or her home jurisdiction because of a declared federal, state,
or local emergency, and in the course and scope of his or her
official duties, may not be discriminated against in hotels,
lodging establishments, eating establishments, or public
transportation by being required to pay an extra charge or
security deposit for the peace officer's or firefighter's dog.
(Civ. Code Sec. 54.25(a)(1).)
Existing law further provides the peace officer's law
enforcement agency or the firefighter's fire agency is liable
for any damages to the premises or facilities caused by the
peace officer's or firefighter's dog. (Civ. Code Sec.
54.25(a)(1).)
Existing law states that any person, firm, association, or
corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, association, or
corporation that prevents a peace officer or a firefighter
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 3 of ?
assigned to a canine unit and his or her dog from exercising, or
interferes in the exercise of, the rights specified in this
section is subject to a civil fine not exceeding $1,000. (Civ.
Code Sec. 54.25(b).)
This bill prohibits discrimination against the handler of a
search and rescue dog assigned to duty away from his or her home
jurisdiction because of a declared federal, state, or local
emergency, or an official mutual aid request or training, and in
the course and scope of his or her duties in hotels, lodging
establishments, eating establishments, or public transportation
by being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for
the dog.
This bill expands the circumstances for the prohibition of
discrimination to include when the peace officer, firefighter,
or handler is away from his or her home jurisdiction because of
an official mutual aid request or training in addition to
declared emergencies.
This bill provides that peace officers and firefighters assigned
to a canine unit, or handlers of a search and rescue dog shall
not be denied service based on the presence of the dog.
This bill requires the handler, in addition to the peace
officer's law enforcement agency or the firefighter's fire
agency, to be liable for any damages to the premises or
facilities caused by the search and rescue dog.
This bill defines "handler of a search and rescue dog" to mean a
person in possession of a dog that is in training to become
registered and approved as a search and rescue dog, or that is
currently registered and approved for tasks, including, but not
limited to, locating missing persons, discovering controlled
substances, explosives, or cadavers, or locating victims in
collapsed structures, and assisting with peace officer
on-command searches for suspects and victims at crime scenes.
This bill defines "search and rescue dog" to mean a dog that has
been trained and approved as a search and rescue dog, or that is
currently registered and approved for search and rescue work
with a search and rescue team affiliated with the California
Emergency Management Agency. The term also includes a dog that
is in training to become registered and approved for that work.
COMMENT
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 4 of ?
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Existing law (Civil Code [Sec.] 54.25) provides protections
for canines under the control of a firefighter or peace
officer, exclusively. These canines are permitted to work off
leash in the course of their duties and their handlers cannot
be discriminated against in hotels, lodging establishments,
eating establishments, or public transportation by being
required to pay an extra charge or security deposit. These
protections only apply during declared disasters and only to
official firefighters and peace officers.
Without the protections currently provided to search and
rescue (SAR) dogs under the control of a firefighter or peace
officer, the volunteer dog handlers are often forced to pay
extra charges and security deposits, while peace officer and
firefighter units are not. AB 2243 would remedy this problem
by expanding these protections to SAR dog teams registered by
the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). It
would also clarify that the protections also apply during
"official mutual aid" deployments and not only during declared
disasters.
The author reported many instances of SAR dog handlers being
charged additional fees by lodging establishments because of the
presence of the SAR dogs. Further, Save Our Dogs, a supporter
of this bill, demonstrates the critical need for this bill as
follows:
Many hotels/motels do not allow dogs, and many others have
limits on the size of dogs such 20 or 30 pounds. Almost all
SAR dogs are 30 to 90 pounds. . . . When a person is traveling
with their dog on vacation this is not a significant problem -
they have plenty of time in advance to find a hotel/motel that
will accommodate their dog. SAR responders don't have time
to do that . . . . We are often paged out late in the day to
arrive at a distant location by early the next morning. SAR
is an emergency. When the pager goes off, we load up our
truck with our gear and dog, and drive.
2. Professional handler vs. volunteer handler
This bill would extend to volunteer handlers of search and
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 5 of ?
rescue dogs the discrimination protections currently provided
only to peace officers and firefighters of canine units. One
concern of expanding the protection to volunteer handlers may be
that they are less qualified than police and firefighter canine
units and may be unable to contain the search and rescue dog in
public settings.
As the author argues, members of these volunteer SAR groups are
registered as Disaster Service Workers under state law and must
meet strict standards established by Cal EMA and adopted by the
California State Sheriff's Association and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. SAR members represent a variety of
backgrounds including reserve peace officers, paramedics, or
retired or working professionals and are dedicated to helping
people.
SAR teams are exposed to a wide variety of conditions and are
expected to function in almost any environment in which they are
placed. Minimum dog training requirements include
socialization, obedience, and helicopter orientation. As a
team, the canine and handler must pass a series of search tests
to become "mission-ready." It takes an average of
one-and-a-half to two years for a handler to become
"mission-ready" and teams participate in on-going training
throughout the year and must be certified and registered by Cal
EMA on a regular basis.
The training requirements are rigorous, with the expectation
that the animal will function in almost any environment. Thus,
the handler's status as "volunteer" should not preclude the dog
from receiving protections (such as those listed in the bill)
that befit its level of certified obedience and socialization.
3. Ability of private businesses to protect and control their
premises from damage
This bill is aimed at lodging and eating establishments and
public transportation providers. Another argument against
extending the discrimination protections to SAR dog handlers is
that business owners will lose the ability to control their own
property from damage caused by SAR dogs and be able to maintain
a specific clientele. However, public policy of providing
emergency responders such as SAR dog-handler teams with lodging,
food, and transportation is heavily in favor of the emergency
responders. This bill would not affect a business's ability to
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 6 of ?
receive compensation through normal means for damages caused by
a certified SAR dog during deployment. Under normal tort
theory, the handler or their assigning agency will have
responsibility for any damages that are caused by the actions of
the dog or the human handler.
Members of these teams incur all costs associated with training
their dogs, travel, communications equipment, and other
expenses, and many members take time off work to participate in
searches and training. This bill also would make the volunteer
SAR handler responsible for any damage created by the SAR dog.
Further, the owners of the businesses and their employees even
may benefit from the aid of SAR dog-handler teams in the event
of an emergency situation. For these reasons, the public
benefit of allowing SAR dog-handler teams access to lodging and
eating establishments and public transportation outweighs the
risk of damage to business owners.
4. Clarification of access to establishments and transportation
This bill would clarify legislative intent that peace officers,
firefighters, and handlers of canine units could not be denied
access to lodging and food establishments and public
transportation based on the presence of a SAR dog. Although AB
2131 prohibited discrimination of peace officers and
firefighters of canine units, existing law does not specify the
Legislature's intent to provide access to lodging and food
establishments and public transportation. Instead, the law only
prohibits businesses from charging additional fees for the
presence of a SAR dog. Existing law provides that this
discrimination protection is afforded to peace officer and
firefighter teams when they are away from their home
jurisdiction and in need of food, lodging, and transportation
during deployment. Current law should reflect the legislative
intent to provide access to these establishments.
One concern is that owners of these establishments may be unable
to remove the SAR dog in the event of a significant disturbance
by the dog. Owners and customers should arguably not be forced
to suffer disruptions to their quiet enjoyment of the
establishment. To address this concern and provide owners with
the ability to maintain the peace and quiet of their properties,
while at the same time provide notice to the handler, the
committee should consider the following amendment:
Suggested amendment :
AB 2243
(Smyth)
Page 7 of ?
On page 3, line 22 insert: "Nothing in this section is
intended to prevent the removal of the search and rescue dog
in the event the search and rescue dog creates an excessive
disturbance to the quiet enjoyment of the property. In the
event of an excessive disturbance, the peace officer,
firefighter, or handler of the search and rescue dog must be
given a minimum of one warning notice of the excessive
disturbance and an opportunity to correct the disturbance.
The mere presence of the dog within the hotel, lodging
establishment, food establishment, or public transportation
shall not be considered an excessive disturbance."
Support : Antelope Valley Kennel Club Inc.; California
Federation of Dog Clubs; California State Sheriffs' Association;
Concerned Dog Owners of California; Irish Wolfhound Club of
America, Inc.; The Humane Society of the United States; Peace
Officers Research Association of California; PetPAC; Save Our
Dogs
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Emergency Management Agency
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
**************