BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 1417 (Cox)
As Amended March 24, 2010
Hearing Date: April 20, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
KB/GW:jd
SUBJECT
Corporations for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the Placer County Board of Supervisors,
the State Humane Association of California, and the California
State Sheriffs Association, would implement new procedures and
requirements for the appointment, and subsequent training, of
humane officers by non-profit organizations formed for the
purpose of preventing cruelty to animals.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
committee.)
BACKGROUND
Humane societies and Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (SPCA) are non-profit organizations that work to enforce
the state's animal welfare laws through the appointment of
humane officers. A humane officer's scope of power can vary,
depending on the level of training and animal welfare education,
but can include the ability to exercise the powers of a peace
officer in order to prevent animal cruelty, make arrests, serve
search warrants, and carry firearms. There are approximately
seventy-five humane officers in the state. Current law
prescribes a process by which humane societies may be
incorporated and appoint humane officers. This bill would
revise current law and implement new procedures and requirements
for the appointment and training of humane officers.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
(more)
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 2 of ?
1. Existing law authorizes corporations for the prevention of
cruelty to children or animals, or both, to be formed under
the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. The articles of
incorporation for these corporations must be endorsed, as
evidence of necessity, by the Department of Justice or by a
judge of the superior court of the county in which the
society's principal office is located. (Corp. Code Sec.
10401.)
This bill would eliminate the option of endorsement by the
Department of Justice and would require the society's articles
of incorporation to be endorsed by a judge.
This bill would create a formal judicial proceeding for the
endorsement of articles of incorporation designated as a
special proceeding.
This bill would require humane societies to serve a copy of
the application for endorsement to the State Humane
Association of California, the Department of Justice,
California Highway Patrol and city police departments, the
sheriff's department having jurisdiction in the county in
which the society is located, and on the animal control
agencies in that county. This bill would authorize those
parties to file opposition to the application and for the
filer to reply, as specified. Both the application and
opposition would be required to contain evidence to enable the
court to make a decision regarding the need for the
corporation.
This bill would require that a society's articles of
incorporation be endorsed for at least five years before a
humane society may submit an application for endorsement.
However, this would not apply to humane societies incorporated
before January 1, 2011.
This bill would also require that the society have been
operating an animal shelter for at least three years or have a
written agreement with another entity such as a public animal
control shelter or licensed veterinary clinic, that provides
for the humane care and treatment of any animals seized and
the preservation of evidence.
This bill would require that the society have been in
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 3 of ?
for at least five years.
2. Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county, to
pay up to $500 per month to a society actively engaged in
enforcing state laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals
or children. (Corp. Code Sec. 14501.)
This bill would instead authorize local governments to enter
into contracts with humane societies for the enforcement of
laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and would also
permit these societies to enforce these laws without a
contract.
This bill would delete obsolete references to pertaining to
humane societies formed for the prevention of cruelty to
children.
3. Existing law provides that only a society for the prevention
of cruelty to animals is eligible to apply for an appointment
of any individual to a level 1 or level 2 humane officer. The
duty of a humane officer is to enforce the laws for the
prevention of cruelty to animals. (Corp. Code
Sec.14502(a)(1)(A).)
Existing law requires that any corporation that has been
formed for the purpose of the prevention of cruelty to animals
and has insurance of at least $1 million for liability for
bodily injury or property damage may appoint any amount of
persons as humane officers, as long as those individuals are
California citizens and the training guidelines have been met.
Appointment by the corporation may only be done after the
corporation has been incorporated for 6 months, upon
resolution by its board of directors or trustees, and entered
into its minutes. (Corp. Code Secs. 14502(a)(2),
14502(a)(3).)
Existing law requires that the humane society or society for
the prevention of cruelty to animals that proposes to appoint
a humane officer to submit an application for appointment to a
judge of the superior court for the county in which the
society is located, and must provide documentation
demonstrating that the individual has completed specified
training requirements. Upon receipt of a report from the
Department of Justice of the appointee's record, if any,
existing law requires the judge to review the appointee's
qualifications and fitness to act as a humane officer and
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 4 of ?
either confirm or deny the appointment. (Corp. Code Secs.
14502(a)(1)(B), 14502(i).)
Existing law requires that before a humane society or society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals appoints a humane
officer, the society must notify the sheriff of the county in
which the society is incorporated of the society's intent to
enforce laws pertaining to the prevention of cruelty to
animals. (Corp. Code Sec. 14502(n).)
Existing law provides that a corporation which has appointed
an officer may revoke that appointment at any time upon filing
with the county's clerk office in which the appointment of the
officer is recorded. Additionally, an authorized sheriff,
local police agency, or the State Humane Association of
California may initiate a revocation hearing by petition.
(Corp. Code Sec. 14502(g).)
Existing law provides that all appointments of humane officers
automatically expire within three years from the date a copy
of the court order certifying his or her appointment was filed
with the county clerk. Officers whose appointments are about
to expire may only be reappointed after completing the
continuing education and training. (Corp. Code Sec.
14502(f).)
This bill would further require a society seeking
reaffirmation of an appointment of a humane officer to serve a
copy of the application on the parties that the society would
be required to serve with a copy of its application for
endorsement, and would provide comparable rights and
procedures for those parties to object in court.
This bill would require the judge, in determining whether to
confirm the appointment, to consider any documentation
submitted to the judge in support of, or opposition to, the
proposed appointment.
This bill would require a party petitioning for a revocation
of the appointment of a humane officer to serve copies on the
State Humane Association of California, the Department of
Justice, and each law enforcement agency and animal control
agency having jurisdiction in the county in which the society
is located.
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 5 of ?
This bill would prescribe specific law and motion requirements
for revocation hearings.
4.Existing law prescribes the powers and qualifications of level
1 and level 2 humane officers. Level 1 humane officers are
authorized to carry firearms, subject to specified
requirements, including background checks and mental and
physical evaluations. (Corps. Code Sec. 14502.)
This bill would require that all humane officers, both level 1
and level 2, to complete the background checks and physical
and mental evaluations currently only required of level 1
officers.
This bill would require that humane officers complete
continuing education and training requirements during each
three-year period following his or her appointment. Level 1
humane officers would additionally be required to complete
weapons training and range qualifications every six months.
All humane officers would be required to file certificates of
compliance with the Department of Justice at the end of the
three-year or six-month period. Failure to comply with the
ongoing training requirements would result in revocation of
the humane officer's appointment at the end of a three-year
term.
This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to charge
a fee to cover the reasonable costs of maintaining the
certificates of compliance.
5. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain
state summary criminal history information, as defined, and to
provide that information to persons holding specified
occupations including, without limitation, probation officers
and parole officers. Existing law requires local criminal
justice agencies to maintain similar information and provide
that information to specified agencies and persons holding
specified occupations. (Pen. Code Secs. 11105, 13300.)
This bill would add humane officers to the specified persons
to whom the Department of Justice and local criminal justice
agencies are required to provide the criminal history
information.
COMMENT
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 6 of ?
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
A Placer County non-profit corporation that never officially
became a Humane Society attempted to appoint Humane Officers.
The Sheriff was provided with inadequate notice of this
organization's attempts, and consequently, had to resort to a
petition to revoke these [appointments] under [Corporations
Code] Section 14502(g)(2). The litigation took approximately
two and a half years to resolve. During the course of the
litigation, various deficiencies and ambiguities in the
statutes became evident. Upon hearing that Placer County
intended to sponsor legislation, the State Humane Association
of California provided additional, more comprehensive
amendments that would address various deficiencies and
ambiguities it has become aware of in its official capacity.
2. New court procedure for endorsement of articles of
incorporation
Under current law, if the Department of Justice either fails to
grant endorsement of the articles of incorporation, or withholds
the endorsement for more than 90 days, a corporation formed for
the purpose of preventing cruelty to animal may then apply to
the judge of the superior court of the county where the
principal office of the corporation is located. The superior
court judge may, if he or she desires, endorse the articles
after first giving due consideration to the necessity of the
corporation and assuring that the incorporators are acting in
good faith. (Corp. Code Secs. 10402, 14502(b).)
Despite its statutory authority, the Department of Justice,
apparently due to workload reasons, is no longer granting
endorsements, leaving the courts to handle this task. However,
because this endorsement process is an anomaly among judicial
proceedings, some courts have been confused as to how they
should be handled, and what evidence must be considered in
granting the endorsement.
As noted by the Judicial Council in support of this bill (as
proposed to be amended):
Over the years, the trial courts have occasionally contacted
the Administrative Office of the Courts with questions about
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 7 of ?
the court's role in approving humane societies and the humane
officers that they appoint. Current law does not provide
courts with much guidance about how to handle applications for
endorsement of humane societies or confirmation of humane
officer appointments. For example, it does not indicate
whether courts should open a case file or require formal
pleadings in connection with such applications. The law is
also ambiguous in its description of the judge's role.
Current law does not identify the criteria to be applied in
making these decisions. Nor does it expressly empower the
court to obtain, or direct the appointing entity to supply,
information that would support such a decision. SB 1417 was
introduced to address these and other issues.
This bill would remove the option of endorsement by the
Department of Justice and would require the society's articles
of incorporation to be endorsed by a judge. This change would
reflect the current practice. This bill would also require a
formal court proceeding for the endorsement of the society's
articles of incorporation. The humane society would be required
to file an application entitled "Petition for Order Endorsing
Articles of Incorporation of a Corporation/Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals," together with a proposed
order. The petition would be required to include evidence
regarding the need for a corporation.
The society would be required to serve a copy of the petition on
the local law enforcement agencies and animal control agencies
in the county, and on the State Humane Association of
California. These parties would have the opportunity to file an
opposition to the endorsement, and the society the opportunity
to file a response. The pleadings would be required to include
evidence as to the need for the corporation. The court would
rule on the application without a hearing, unless it notifies
the parties of its intent to hold a hearing. The proceeding
would be designated a special proceeding as defined in Code of
Civil Procedure Section 23.
Committee staff notes that these procedures and policies closely
mirror those currently followed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court pursuant to a Standing Order issued in February 2009 in
order to address procedural deficiencies in current law. Los
Angeles County currently has the state's most humane societies
and officers.
Aside from providing clarity to courts, this proceeding is also
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 8 of ?
intended to provide local law enforcement agencies with the
opportunity to participate in the endorsement process and
provide relevant information to the court. This arguably
facilitates the early resolution of any concerns or problems
pertaining to formation of the corporation.
Social Compassion in Legislation, and other opponents to this
bill, has expressed concerns that the notice requirements in
this bill are overly broad, burdensome, vague, and generally
promote an adversarial proceeding when humane societies are
being incorporated. The author's amendments, as reflected in
the mock-up, are intended to address some of these concerns in
that they more specifically outline the court procedures for
endorsement. While this bill does create a more comprehensive
process that imposes more requirements on humane societies, it
would also implement a uniform practice in courts statewide,
which arguably better serves the public interest.
3. Court proceeding to reaffirm or revoke the appointment a
humane officer
Currently, humane societies submit an application for the
appointment of a humane officer to the local superior court, and
must provide certain documentation pertaining to the appointee's
qualifications, training, and criminal history. The humane
society must also submit proof of liability insurance of at
least one million dollars. This bill would create more specific
procedures that must be followed for the appointment of a humane
officer.
Specifically, the humane society would be required to file a
"Petition for Order Confirming Appointment of a Humane Officer,"
along with the documentation already required by existing law.
Prior to filing the petition, the humane society would be
required to send a copy of its resolution and Live Scan report
for the appointee to the Department of Justice for a criminal
history check. The Department of Justice would be authorized to
charge a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of preparing the
report.
Upon receipt of the petition, the court would review the matter
of the appointee's qualifications and fitness to act as a humane
officer, taking into consideration all documentation it has
received in either support or opposition of the appointment. If
the court finds cause to confirm the appointment, it would state
so in a court order. The appointee would then file the court
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 9 of ?
order with the county clerk and provide a copy to the State
Humane Association of California and the Department of Justice.
This bill would also require that a humane society seeking
reaffirmation of an appointment of a humane officer must serve a
copy of the application on the same agencies and association
that it would be required to serve with a copy of its
application for endorsement. These parties would have
comparable rights and procedures to object to the reaffirmation
as in the endorsement process.
Finally, this bill would also prescribe formal notice, and law
and motion requirements for a hearing to revoke an appointment
to a humane officer. The hearing would be designated as a
Special Proceeding as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section
23. Upon a finding of good cause, the court would be required
to issue an order granting the petition to revoke the
appointment, which would then be entered with the county clerk.
These provisions are intended to provide more guidance to the
courts in affirming appointment of humane officers and create a
process that facilitates involvement of local law enforcement
agencies. This would arguably reduce the need for revocations
of appointments at a later date. Committee staff notes that
these procedures closely mirror those currently followed by the
Los Angeles County Superior Court pursuant to a Standing Order
issued in February 2009 in order to address procedural
deficiencies in current law.
4. Contracts with local governments
Current law requires a city or county to pay up to $500 per
month to a society actively engaged in enforcing state laws for
the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. This bill
would instead authorize local governments to enter into
contracts with humane societies, thereby ensuring that a
contract is in place before a humane society can request payment
for its services. This is intended to eliminate the likelihood
that a humane society could receive payment for services not
sanctioned or requested by a local government. However, humane
societies would still be able to enforce state laws for the
prevention of cruelty to animals in the absence of a contract.
This particular code section also contains some references to
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 10 of ?
contracts with societies for the prevention of cruelty to
children, which are obsolete. Counties do not contract with
humane societies for child welfare services; this is all done
internally. Accordingly, this bill would delete the outdated
references in Section 14501.
5. New requirements for the appointment of humane officers
This bill would impose the following requirements before a
humane society could appoint a humane officer: (1) a minimum of
five years have passed since its articles of incorporation were
endorsed; (2) it has been operating an animal shelter for a
minimum of three years or has a written agreement with another
entity that provides for the humane care and treatment of any
animals seized; and (3) it has been in compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws for a minimum of five
years.
Under current law, a humane society need only wait six months
before appointing a humane officer, who then has the power,
depending on the level of training, to exercise the powers of a
peace officer to prevent animal cruelty, make arrests, serve
search warrants, and carry firearms. According to the sponsors,
these new requirements are intended to ensure that humane
officers are supervised by an organization that had had an
opportunity to develop a donor base, create ties with the
community and local law enforcement/animal control agencies, and
establish themselves as a professional and credible entity
within the community.
Opponents expressed concerns that the five-year waiting period
is unprecedented and would discourage the new formation of
humane societies. They have also asserted that this requirement
would effectively terminate existing humane societies that have
been incorporated for less than five years. They also assert
that it is unreasonable to require all humane societies to
operate animal shelters since they serve different functions.
Accordingly, this bill, as proposed to be amended, would provide
that the five-year waiting requirement does not apply to humane
societies that were incorporated prior to January 1, 2011. In
addition, humane societies would not be required to operate an
animal shelter themselves, but instead have a written agreement
with an entity that provides humane care for any animals seized.
While these amendments have addressed some of the opposition's
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 11 of ?
concerns, they remain opposed to the five-year waiting period
because they assert it will discourage the formation of new
humane societies.
6.Increased requirements for humane officers
Current law contains two categories of humane officers (level 1
and level 2) and prescribes the powers and qualifications for
each. A level 2 officer must complete 60 hours of training in
state humane laws and animal care. In order to make arrests and
serve search warrants, the officer must complete the arrest
component of the course prescribed under Penal Code Section 832.
A level 1 humane officer must also complete 60 hours of
training, but also has the option of carrying a firearm if he or
she completes the basic training prescribed by the Commission on
Peace Officers Standards and Training for a level 1 reserve
officer. In addition, a level 1 humane officer may not be a
felon and must be free from physical, emotional, or mental
conditions that could affect the exercise of his or her powers.
(Corp. Code Sec. 14502.)
This bill, as proposed to be amended, would require that both
level 1 and level 2 humane officers be subject to the same
disqualification standards, background checks, and evaluations
for physical, emotional, or mental fitness as currently required
for level 1 officers. These are also some of the same
requirements imposed on peace officers. As previously stated,
humane officers are not peace officers, but they may exercise
the powers of a peace officer at all places within the state in
order to prevent cruelty to animals. Thus, they may serve
warrants, make arrests, and use reasonable force necessary to
prevent the perpetration of cruelty to animals. Because humane
officers have some authority to act under the color of law, it
is arguably appropriate to ensure that they go through
heightened background checks for criminal history and physical
and mental evaluations to ensure that they are capable of
carrying out their duties.
The current version of the bill would have eliminated the level
1 and level 2 distinctions, but would have heightened the
requirements for the entire category of humane officers, with
additional training requirements imposed for those who wish to
carry firearms. Opponents expressed concerns that the removal
of the two distinct categories would facilitate and encourage
the carrying of weapons by humane officers. Additionally, they
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 12 of ?
argued that removing the two levels would make it difficult for
a court affirming the humane officer's appointment to know
whether the officer would ultimately be carrying a firearm.
This bill, as proposed to be amended, reinstates the two levels
of humane officers, which should address this concern.
7. Continuing education and training for humane officers
This bill would require all humane officers to complete
certification of compliance for continuing education and
training during each three-year period following his or her
appointment. A humane society would also be required to obtain
Criminal Record Offender Information on the humane officer no
more than 60 days prior to the end of the three-year period. As
proposed to be amended, a certificate of compliance would have
to be filed with the Department of Justice, who would be
authorized to charge a fee to cover the reasonable cost of
filing and processing the certificates of compliance. Failure
to file the certificate of compliance no later than twenty-one
days after the expiration of a three-year period would result in
immediate revocation of the appointment. If the humane officer
is authorized to carry a firearm, he or she would additionally
be required to complete weapons training and range
qualifications every six months. This would also have to be
filed with the Department of Justice.
The version of the bill currently in print would have required
the certificate of compliance to be filed with the superior
court. However, concerns were expressed that courts were not
the appropriate entity to be receiving these certificates,
especially if they were intended to increase oversight of humane
officers. Because humane officers are authorized to exercise
some peace officer duties, the Department of Justice is arguably
the most appropriate state entity to oversee continued training
compliance and revocations for failure to comply.
8. Additional Opponents' concerns
In addition to the concerns previously discussed, the opposition
generally asserts that this bill would discourage the formation
of new humane societies, and thereby reduce the number of humane
officers in the state. The opposition states that California
needs more, not less, humane officers to enforce laws preventing
cruelty to animals, and point out that they reduce costs to
local governments who otherwise are tasked with enforcing these
laws. The opposition also asserts that the inclusion of law
SB 1417 (Cox)
Page 13 of ?
enforcement agencies and the State Humane Association of
California in the incorporation and appointments procedures is
unwarranted and promotes an adversarial process.
The Antelope Valley Kennel Club, also in opposition, opposes SB
1417 on the grounds that it does not abolish humane officers
completely. It argues that humane officers are not accountable
to the public, and should not have the authority to enforce
state laws.
Support : California Animal Control Directors Association;
Judicial Council (if amended); Peace Officers Research
Association of California
Opposition : Animal Legal Defense Fund; Antelope Valley Kennel
Club, Inc.; Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills; League of
Placer County Taxpayers; National Animal Control Association;
Riverside Humane Society Pet Adoption Center; Social Compassion
in Legislation; one individual
HISTORY
Source : Placer County Board of Supervisors; State Humane
Association of California; California State Sheriffs Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 477 (Craven, Chapter 84, Statutes of 1994) imposed increased
training requirements on humane officers.
AB 1571 (Caldera, Chapter 806, Statutes of 1995) provided that
humane officers may only enforce laws inside the county in which
their appointing agency is incorporated unless they receive
consent from the sheriff of another county.
**************