Existing law prohibits, subject to exceptions, specified acts of animal abuse including, among others, the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, or wounding of a living animal. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill would require a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above to be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 for each violation, in addition to the fines described above. The bill would require those additional fines to be paid to the local public animal control agency that has jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred. The bill would generally require authorize the agency to use the moneys paid as a fine to compensate the owner or caretaker of an animal that requires medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery as a result of a violation of the animal abuse prohibitions described above for the costs incurred by the owner or caretaker for the animals medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery. a person who incurs costs for the animals medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery, if the owner or caretaker of the animal was the person who violated the animal abuse prohibitions described above. The bill would also require, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above in a rehabilitative facility for animals to pay for and successfully complete an appropriate counseling course, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would define rehabilitative facility for animals for these purposes as a facility at which medical care or rehabilitative services are provided to animals, including, but not limited to, an animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or aquarium. By increasing the penalties for existing crimes and increasing the duties of a public animal control agency relative to the use of the moneys paid as a fine, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law prohibits, subject to exceptions, specified acts of animal abuse including, among others, the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, or wounding of a living animal. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill would require a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above to be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 for each violation, in addition to the fines described above. The bill would require those additional fines to be deposited into the Victims of Animal Abuse Fund, which would be established by the bill. The bill would require the Veterinary Medical Board to administer the fund, and would continuously appropriate all money deposited in the fund to the board for the bills purposes. paid to the local public animal control agency that has jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred. The bill would generally require the board agency to use the money in the fund moneys paid as a fine to compensate the owner or caretaker of an animal that requires medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery as a result of a violation of the animal abuse prohibitions described above for the costs incurred by the owner or caretaker for the animals medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery. The bill would also require, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above in a rehabilitative facility for animals to pay for and successfully complete an appropriate counseling course, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would define rehabilitative facility for animals for these purposes as a facility at which medical care or rehabilitative services are provided to animals, including, but not limited to, an animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or aquarium. By increasing the penalties for existing crimes, crimes and increasing the duties of a public animal control agency relative to the use of the moneys paid as a fine, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law prohibits, subject to exceptions, specified acts of animal abuse including, among others, the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, or wounding of a living animal. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill would require a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above to be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 for each violation, in addition to the fines described above. The bill would require those additional fines to be deposited into the Victims of Animal Abuse Fund, which would be established by the bill. The bill would require the Veterinary Medical Board to administer the fund, and would continuously appropriate all money deposited in the fund to the board for the bills purposes. The bill would generally require the board to use the money in the fund to compensate the owner or caretaker of an animal that requires medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery as a result of a violation of the animal abuse prohibitions described above for the costs incurred by the owner or caretaker for the animals medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery. The bill would also require, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above in a rehabilitative facility for animals to pay for and successfully complete an appropriate counseling course, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would define rehabilitative facility for animals for these purposes as a facility at which medical care or rehabilitative services are provided to animals, including, but not limited to, an animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or aquarium. By increasing the penalties for existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Date of Hearing: January 12, 2016

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:(Brough) – As anu Ver:January 4, 2016

SUMMARY:

Provides that a person who commits animal abuse may be punished by an additional fine not to exceed $5,000 for each violation, in addition to the base fine of up to $20,000. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows a separate fine, up to $5,000, for each conviction of animal cruelty, in addition to the base fine of up to $20,000 for each conviction of animal cruelty.
   
2. Exempts the additional fine from the penalty assessments which are generally added to fines for criminal offenses.
   
3. Requires the additional fines to be paid to the local public animal control agency that has jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred. 
   
4. Allows the animal control agency to use moneys from the specified fine to compensate a person or nonprofit organization who incurred costs for the animal’s medical care or rehabilitation as a result of the animal cruelty, when the owner or caretaker of the animal was the person who committed the animal cruelty.
   
5. Allows the animal control agency to use moneys from the specified fine to compensate a person, including a nonprofit organization, who incurs costs for the animal’s medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery when the animal has no identifiable owner or caretaker.
   
6. Requires a person who commits animal abuse in a rehabilitative facility for animals to pay for and successfully complete an appropriate counseling course, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.
   
7. Defines “rehabilitative facility for animals” for these purposes as a facility at which medical care or rehabilitative services are provided to animals, including, but not limited to, an animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or aquarium.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies the actions of a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal as a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, § 597.)
2. Specifies when a person overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, 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; and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when unfit for labor as a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b).)
3. Specifies the actions of a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish, as a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (c).)
   
4. Requires punishment as a felony by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment for violations of Penal Code section 597(animal cruelty). (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (d).)
5. Specifies that upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section by causing or permitting an act of cruelty, as specified, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be awarded to the impounding officer for proper disposition. A 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, subd. (g).)
   
6. Specifies that mandatory seizure or impoundment shall not apply to animals in properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations performed under the authority of the faculty of a regularly incorporated medical college or university of this state. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (g).)
7. Requires that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction of animal cruelty, the court shall order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. If the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's ability to pay. The counseling shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. If the court does not order custody as a condition of probation for a conviction under this section, the court shall specify on the court record the reason or reasons for not ordering custody. This does not apply to cases involving police dogs or horses as described in Section 600. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
8. Provides that any person who maliciously strikes, beats, kicks, stabs, shoots, or throws, hurls, or projects any rock or object at any horse being used by a peace officer, or any dog being supervised by a peace officer in the performance of his or her duties is a public offense. If the injury inflicted is a serious injury, as specified, the person shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, two or three years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the injury inflicted is not a serious injury, the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both a fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (a).)
9. States that any person who willfully and maliciously interferes with, or obstructs, any horse or dog being used by a peace officer or any dog being supervised by a peace officer in the performance of his or her duties by frightening, teasing, agitating, harassing, or hindering the horse or dog shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (b).)
10. Provides that any person who, with the intent to inflict serious injury or death, personally causes the death, destruction, or serious physical injury of a horse or dog being used by, or under the direction of, a peace officer shall, upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment for one year. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (c).)

1. Defines "serious injury" to include bone fracture, loss or impairment of function of any bodily member, wounds requiring extensive suturing, or serious crippling. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (c).)
2. Provides that any person with the intent to inflict that injury, personally causes great bodily injury to a person not an accomplice, shall, upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for two years unless the conduct can be punished under Penal Code section 12022.7 or it is an element of a separate offense for which the person is convicted. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (d).)
3. Requires the defendant to make restitution to the agency owning the animal and employing the peace officer for any veterinary bills, replacement costs of the animal if it is disabled or killed, and the salary of the peace officer for the period of time his or her services are lost to the agency. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (e).)
   
4. Specifies that owner or keeper of an abandoned or neglected animal is personally liable to the seizing agency for the full cost of the seizure and care of the animal. The charges for the seizure and care of the animal shall be a lien on the animal. The 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. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(4).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Animal abuse continues to be an issue in California. Recent high-profile cases have involved vicious attacks on animals in protective facilities such as aquariums, sanctuaries and shelters. These acts are especially egregious and require an elevated response.
   
   “These nonprofit organizations and local agencies provide care for abused animals without compensation or assistance except through charitable donations to the organization. AB 1543 acknowledges the work of these organizations and aids their efforts by directing them an additional portion of penalty fines.
   
   “Causing harm to an animal in protective care is an indication of a troubled mental/emotional state. AB 1543 requires that perpetrators convicted of harming an animal in a shelter, sanctuary, aquarium or other such safe haven complete an appropriate court-appointed counseling course. Counseling will identify depraved behavior and prevent further acts violence against animals and humans."
   
2. Current Law Allows a $20,000 Fine for Each Separate Conviction of Animal Cruelty: The fine of up to $20,000 can be imposed whether the conviction is for a felony or a misdemeanor. If the defendant is convicted of multiple counts of animal cruelty the court can impose a fine of up to $20,000 for each count. That maximum fine is significantly higher than almost all other felony convictions. Generally, the maximum fine for an individual felony conviction is $10,000. Generally, the maximum fine for an individual misdemeanor conviction is $1,000.
   
3. Penalty Assessments and Fees Quadruple the Cost of a $20,000 Fine:
   There are penalty assessments and fees assessed on the base fine for a crime.  Assuming a defendant was fined the maximum $20,000, for a single conviction, as provided by current law, the following penalty assessments would be imposed pursuant to the Penal Code and the Government Code:
   
   Base Fine:                                                                 $  20,000

Penal Code 1464 state penalty on fines:                                  20,000  ($10 for every $10)
Penal Code 1465.7 state surcharge:                                        4,000  (20% surcharge)Penal Code 1465.8 court operation assessment:                          40 ($40 fee per offense)
Government Code 70372 court construction penalty:          10, 000  ($5 for every $10) Government Code 70373 assessment:                                             30  ($30 per felony/misdo) Government Code 76000 penalty:                                             14,000  ($7 for every $10) Government Code 76000.5 EMS penalty:                                   4,000  ($2 for every $10) Government Code 76104.6 DNA fund penalty:                        2,000  ($1 for every $10) Government Code 76104.7 addt'l DNA fund penalty:           8,000  ($4 for every $10)

Total Fine with Assessments:                                                       $82,070

1. This Bill Creates an Additional Fine Without Requiring Any Additional Criminal Conduct: Existing law provides for a fine of up to $20,000 when a person commits a crime of animal cruelty. (Pen. Code § 597.) This bill adds a second fine without requiring any additional conduct by the defendant to the crime more serious than the conduct which forms the basis for the fine of up to $20,000.
   
2. Existing Law Requires Defendants to Make Restitution to Victims of Their Crime: All persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity have the right to restitution from those convicted of that crime. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(b), Pen. Code § 1202.4.) In addition, courts can order restitution as a condition to probation. (Pen. Code § 1203.1, subd. (a)(3).) The courts’ power to order restitution as a condition of probation is even broader than what is required under direct victim restitution. Courts can, among other reasons, direct a defendant to make restitution as a condition of probation as long as the restitution is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted. (Pen. Code § 1203.1, subd. (j).)
   
   Given the requirement of victim restitution and the power of the court to order restitution as a condition of probation, current law provides mechanisms for reimbursement to compensate owners, organizations, or other individuals that incur costs to rehabilitate animals injured as a result of animal cruelty.
   
3. Prioritization of Court-Ordered Debt:  Current law prioritizes the order in which delinquent court-ordered debt received is to be satisfied. The priorities are 1) victim restitution, 2) state surcharge, 3) restitution fines, penalty assessments, and other fines, with payments made on a proportional basis to the total amount levied for all of these items, and 4) state/county/city reimbursements, and special revenue items.
   
4. The Additional Fines Collected by This Bill Would Not Be Distributed to the General Fund: This bill would collect a fine that would not go to the general fund, as the vast majority of criminal fines do. Instead the additional fines collected under the provisions of this bill would be distributed to the local public animal control agency that has jurisdiction in the location where the violation was committed. The local public animal control agency may use the money to compensate individuals or nonprofits who incurred costs for the animal’s medical care or rehabilitation as a result of the animal cruelty unless the person was the abuser.
   
5. This Bill Adds a Counseling Requirement for a Defendant Convicted of Animal Abuse in a Rehabilitative Facility for Animals that is Duplicative of Existing Law: Existing law requires any defendant granted probation for a violation of animal abuse to complete counseling as determined by the court to treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Pen. Code § 597, subd. (h).) This bill adds the same counseling requirement if the defendant commits the violation of animal cruelty in a rehabilitative facility for animals. There is no need to add a provision to require counseling based on a narrower set of circumstances.
   
6. Argument in Support: According to The Humane Society, “Despite felony animal cruelty provisions in state law, violent attacks on animals are all too common in California. Vicious attacks on rescued animals who are in the care of government or non-profit animal care organizations are thankfully rare, but are especially egregious. By seeking enhanced penalties and counseling for criminals who harm these most vulnerable animals, AB 1543 is another step toward deterring such acts. We understand you plan to amend AB 1543 to direct the additional $5,000 penalty to the local animal care agency where an eligible crime occurs, which we think makes your legislation even more efficient and appropriate.
   
   “Strong laws to protect animals from cruelty are obviously important for the animals’ sake. But a number of studies have drawn links between the abuse of animals and violence against people. A 2001-2004 study by the Chicago Police Department "revealed a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offenses toward human victims." Of those arrested for animal crimes, 65% had been arrested for battery against another person. (Degenhardt, B. 2005. Statistical Summary of Offenders Charged with Crimes against Companion Animals July 2001-July 2005. Report from the Chicago Police Department.) Of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents. (Cohen, W. (1996). Congressional Register, 142(141), Oct. 3.) And of seven school shootings that took place across the country between 1997 and 2001, all involved boys who had previously committed acts of animal cruelty.”
   
7. Argument in Opposition: According to the ACLU of California, “Given that existing fines appear sufficient to punish the conduct underlying Penal Code section 597, we do not believe this bill is necessary.
   
   “Current law already provides adequate fines for those who violate Penal Code section 597. A person convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor violation of the statute can be punished, in addition to any applicable terms of imprisonment, by a fine of up to $20,000. A fine of $20,000 is already equal to 66% of the average per capita annual income in California. The additional $5,000, as proposed by the bill could result in a person being required to pay a total fine equal to 83% the average annual income. Such fines, nearly impossible for an average Californian to pay without being rendered penniless, will only further expand the growing number of Californians saddled with court-ordered debt and increase the existing $10 billion in debt yet to be collected. Thus, increasing fines as proposed by the bill makes little sense, especially when there is no indication that existing fines have been insufficient.”
   
8. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1117 (Smyth), Chapter 553, Statutes of 2011, specified that the owner of an animal seized pursuant to a search warrant shall be liable for the costs of caring for and treating the animal and that these costs will be a lien on the animal which must be paid before the animal is returned.
      
   2. SB 917 (Lieu), Chapter 131, Statutes of 2011, conformed the misdemeanor penalty for overloading, torturing, tormenting, maims, mutilates, tortures or wound a living animal, punishable by up to one year in jail.
   3. AB 2012 (Lieu), of the Legislative Session of 2009-2010, would have conformed the misdemeanor penalty for overloading, torturing, tormenting, maims, mutilates, tortures or wounds a living animal, punishable for up to one year in jail for the misdemeanor portion of the existing wobbler. AB 2012 was vetoed by the governor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Aquarium of the Pacific
Beagle Freedom Project
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators
City of Jorupa Valley
Humane Society
In Defense of Animals
Pacific Marine Mammal Center

Opposition

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Analysis Prepared by: