Date of Hearing: August 18, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 580

Author:(Wilk) – As Amended Ver:August 10, 2020

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a court to consider ordering a defendant granted probation for specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation. This bill also requires a defendant to pay for the cost of any mental health evaluations and any subsequent treatment, if needed, unless the defendant is financially unable to pay.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs (General Fund (GF)/local funds/Trial Court Trust Fund), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the trial courts and county mental health departments to cover the costs of indigent defendants convicted of specified animal abuse to receive a mental health evaluation and, if necessary, mental health treatment. Possible costs to the courts or a local mandate to county mental health programs will depend on the actual implementation and is subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. Actual costs will depend on how many defendants receive mental health evaluations and treatment and are unable to pay.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

There is an undeniable link between animal abuse and more serious violence toward humans. More often than not, those who abuse animals at one point in their lives will go on to commit much more appalling crimes including domestic violence, rape and murder - in fact, nearly half of school shooters and serial killers have serious histories of animal abuse.

1. Background. Existing law states that if a defendant is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction, a court shall order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling 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.
   
   
   
   
   This bill would delete the requirement of mandatory counseling in every case of animal cruelty where the defendant is placed on probation, and instead would require the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as part of probation. This bill would also require the court to consider the mental health evaluation for a number of animal abuse crimes that do not currently require mandatory counseling.
2. Prior Legislation. SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill and would have eliminated mandatory counseling for some defendants charged with certain animal abuse crimes and instead provides courts with discretion to require counseling for a broader range of animal abuse crimes. SB 1024 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2020

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 580

Author:(Wilk) – As Amended Ver:May 22, 2019

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY: Requires a court to consider ordering a defendant that has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation. Specifies that if the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant shall complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the requirement that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction 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.
   
2. Requires the court to consider for every defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses, whether to order that the person undergo a mental health evaluation by an evaluator chosen by the court.
   
3. Specifies if the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant shall complete mandatory counseling as directed by the court.
   
4. States that mental health evaluations and any subsequent treatment shall be paid for by the defendant, but 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.
   
5. States that an indigent defendant may negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has the ability to pay the nominal fee. County mental health departments or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this section only for those persons who meet the medical necessity, as specified.
   
6. Provides that the counseling specified in this bill shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and fine.
   
7. States that finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to the provisions of this bill, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.

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 and 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 specified as a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (c).)
   
4. States that a violation of animal cruelty may be punished 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. (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. States that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction 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. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
7. States that 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.
   
8. Specifies that the counseling shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
9. States that the court may also order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or 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. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (l)
   
10.  States that any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of animal cruelty, as specified, and who, within five years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a crime, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a).)
    
11. States that any person who has been convicted of a felony violation of animal cruelty, as specified, and who, within 10 years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a).)
12. Allows a defendant to petition the court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition. Upon receipt of a petition from the defendant, the court shall set a hearing to be conducted within 30 days after the filing of the petition. At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following: (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (d)(1)(a)-(c).)
    
    1. He or she does not present a danger to animals;
       
    2. He or she has the ability to properly care for all animals in his or her possession; and,
       
    3. He or she has successfully completed all classes or counseling ordered by the court.
       
13. Specifies that if the petitioner has met his or 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. (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (d)(2).)
    

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "There is an undeniable link between animal abuse and more serious violence toward humans. More often than not, those who abuse animals at one point in their lives will go on to commit much more appalling crimes including domestic violence, rape and murder – in fact, nearly half of school shooters and serial killers have serious histories of animal abuse.

“We know that this link exists, but we have failed to properly address it. SB 580 will help rethink the way we deal with animal abuse in the courts. The most serious crimes will call for a mental health evaluation and, if the court sees fit, treatment according to professional opinion. This ensures early intervention for those who need it most, and begins to move away from a more outdated system that fails to address the underlying problems facing animal abuse defendants.”

1. Current Law Requires A Defendant Granted Probation for an Animal Cruelty Conviction to Undergo Counseling as Directed by the Court: Existing law states that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction 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. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).) 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. (Id.)
   

Cases involving animal cruelty can vary significantly in terms of their nature and severity. Some cases involve simple neglect where an animal isn’t provided proper food or care. Other cases involve significant intentional acts of cruelty. Current law imposes a mandatory sentencing requirement of counseling. That mandatory sentencing requirement does not necessarily fit the needs or circumstances of all cases of animal cruelty.

"Society receives maximum protection when the penalty, treatment or disposition of the offender is tailored to the individual case. Only the trial judge has the knowledge, ability and tools at hand to properly individualize the treatment of the offender." (People v. Williams (1970) 30 Cal. 3d 470,482, citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) An effective sentencing framework seeks to avoid arbitrary or rigid sentencing procedures which lead to unjust results.

This bill would delete the requirement of mandatory counseling in every case of animal cruelty where the defendant is placed on probation, and instead would require the court to consider a mental health evaluation for a defendant who is granted probation for specified animal abuse offenses. This bill would not make the mental health evaluation mandatory. However, if a mental health evaluation is conducted and the evaluating mental health professional deems it necessary, the defendant must complete counseling as part of probation. This bill would also require the court to consider the mental health evaluation for a number of animal abuse crimes that do not currently require mandatory counseling.

1. Amendments Proposed to be Adopted in Committee:
   
   1. Remove the requirement that the court consider imposing an responsible animal owners education course when a defendant is granted probation for specified offenses involving animal abuse.
      
   2. Require a court to consider ordering a defendant that has been granted probation after conviction of specified animal abuse crimes to undergo a mental health evaluation, instead of making an evaluation mandatory in every case.
      

The proposed amendments make this bill consistent with SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. SB 1024 was passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

1. Argument in Support: According to Animal Legal Defense Fund, “There is no specialization required for treatment for animal abusers – underlying causes may differ, from conduct disorder to anger management and beyond – so there are many mental health providers that can be available to conduct evaluations and provide treatment. The Animals & Society Institute is one example of an organization offering resources for mental health providers to treat animal abusers such as assessment tools and tailored treatment for multiple underlying conditions. SB 580 only requires a mental health evaluation and only for specified animal cruelty crimes for which there may be an underlying mental health issue. Such an evaluation will: 1) Ensure that those who have a mental illness have the opportunity to receive treatment; and 2) Ensure that those who are found to have an underlying mental health issue get a recommendation for appropriate treatment. Treating mental health issues – particularly as tied to animal abuse – is not a one-size-fits all approach and it is crucial that the criminal justice system strive to order full treatments only where appropriate, and to narrowly-tailor treatments for the most effective rehabilitation for an individual offender.
   
   “While not every animal abuser necessarily has an underlying mental health issue, nearly all offenders can benefit from humane education instruction. Offenders who commit domestic violence or child abuse are required to participate in batterer’s counseling and parenting courses, respectively. As animal abuse is linked to these other crimes, it is only reasonable that humane education/responsible pet ownership courses, be a tool that judges can utilize as part of sentencing for animal abusers. These courses encourage empathy and promote understanding of the need for compassion and respect for animals. Additionally, these courses teach proper care for animals. In cases of neglect, many individuals simply do not know proper animal care or recognize animals as sentient beings. These courses are instrumental in helping to reduce recidivism for low-level offenders. Moreover, most classes are relatively inexpensive, and per DDA Guthrie, offenders can pay over time or request a reduced rate, thus addressing any concern about payment being too burdensome for some offenders.

“Mental health evaluations for certain animal abusers, as well as humane education courses, are both important tools that should be available to courts. These are both crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims. We commend Senator Wilk for introducing a holistic approach toward educating and rehabilitating those that commit such offenses.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the San Diego Humane Society, ““Current law provides that the court is mandated to order counseling for any defendant who is granted probation upon convicted of a violation of Penal Code 597. SB 580 proposes to eliminate this mandate in lieu of psychiatric or psychological testing. While such testing may identify significant psychological disorders, it will likely miss other issues that were a result of short-lived anger management, alcohol abuse, or being linked to another crime (eg., spousal abuse that included animal cruelty). It’s uncertain whether a psychological evaluation would test for or discern those causes. Failure to identify those underlying issues would not give the court a clear understanding of the cause of abuse and could eliminate the opportunity for intervention.
   
   “While we understand what you are trying to achieve with SB 580, we cannot support the elimination of mandated counseling. There are too many incidents where a psychological evaluation may not identify a specific problem that counseling could address. For example, a family having financial problems and an animal is injured because the person is striking out due to frustration and stress. An evaluation likely won’t identify a psychological disorder, but mandated counseling could address the root cause of the outburst – the stress over financial mismanagement.
   
   “We propose maintaining the requirement for mandatory counseling for any defendant who is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction unless the psychological or psychiatric evaluation results in the recommendation for a greater level of treatment, which they shall undergo.“
   
2. Related Legislation: AB 611 (Nazarian), would require a person convicted of a violation of sexual contact with an animal to participate counseling as directed by the court. AB 611 has been referred to the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 3040 (Nazarian), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have prohibited sexual contact, as defined, with any animal, and would require a person convicted of a violation of sexual contact with an animal to participate counseling as directed by the court. AB 3040 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 628 (Chen), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have clarified procedures for notification of animal owners regarding hearings and payment of costs when an animal is seized or impounded. AB 628 was never heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      
   4. AB 2052 (Williams), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have required a person sentenced for two or more current convictions for specified animal abuse and animal cruelty offenses to be sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. AB 2052 failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. AB 794 (Linder), Chapter 201, Statues of 2015, expanded criminal acts against law enforcement animals to include offenses against animals used by volunteers acting under the direct supervision of a peace officer.
      
   6. AB 2278 (Levine), of the 2014-2015 Legislative Session, would have clarified procedures for notification of animal owners regarding hearings and payment of costs when an animal is seized or impounded. AB 2278 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   7. SB 1500 (Lieu), Chapter 598, Statutes of 2012, allows pre-conviction forfeiture of an individual’s seized animals in animal abuse and neglect cases.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Wellness Action
Animal Wellness Foundation
California Police Chiefs Association
Humane Society of the United States

Opposition

San Diego Humane Society

Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

Date of Hearing: July 9, 2019

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 580

Author:(Wilk) – As Amended Ver:May 22, 2019

SUMMARY: Requires a psychiatric or psychological evaluation when a person is convicted and receives probation for specified animal offenses. Requires the court to consider whether to order a responsible owner education course when a person receives probation for specified offenses involving animal abuse. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for specified offenses involving abuse of animals the court shall order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment, at the convicted person’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
2. Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
3. Provides that an indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has the ability to pay a nominal fee.
4. Provides that county mental health departments or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this section only for those person who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care.
   
5. Deletes the mandatory counseling and treatment requirement in existing law.
   
6. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for one of 32 animal related misdemeanors and felonies, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course.
   
7. Provides that the responsible animal owner education course shall be one of the following:
8. An online course approved by the California Department of Education;
   
9. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state; or
10. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
    

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 specified as a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (c).)
   
4. States that a violation of animal cruelty may be punished 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. (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. States that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction 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. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
7. States that 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. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
8. Specifies that the counseling shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
   
9. States that the court may also order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or 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. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (l)
   
10.  States that any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of animal cruelty, as specified, and who, within five years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a crime, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a).)
    
11. States that any person who has been convicted of a felony violation of animal cruelty, as specified, and who, within 10 years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a).)
12. Allows a defendant to petition the court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition. Upon receipt of a petition from the defendant, the court shall set a hearing to be conducted within 30 days after the filing of the petition. At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following: (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (d)(1)(a)-(c).)
    
    1. He or she does not present a danger to animals;
       
    2. He or she has the ability to properly care for all animals in his or her possession; and,
       
    3. He or she has successfully completed all classes or counseling ordered by the court.
       
13. Specifies that if the petitioner has met his or 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. (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (d)(2).)
    

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "There is an undeniable link between animal abuse and more serious violence toward humans. More often than not, those who abuse animals at one point in their lives will go on to commit much more appalling crimes including domestic violence, rape and murder – in fact, nearly half of school shooters and serial killers have serious histories of animal abuse.

“We know that this link exists, but we have failed to properly address it. SB 580 will help rethink the way we deal with animal abuse in the courts. The most serious crimes will call for a mental health evaluation and, if the court sees fit, treatment according to professional opinion. This ensures early intervention for those who need it most, and begins to move away from a more outdated system that fails to address the underlying problems facing animal abuse defendants.”

1. Current Law Requires A Defendant Granted Probation for an Animal Cruelty Conviction to Undergo Counseling as Directed by the Court: Existing law states that if a defendant is granted probation for a conviction 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. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).) The counseling shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine.
   
2. Requiring Mental Health Evaluations as a Condition of Probation is Overbroad: This bill would require the court to order a defendant that is granted probation for specified offenses involving abuse of animals to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation. The defendant would be required to undergo any treatment, at the defendant’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
   
   Psychological or psychiatric evaluations are appropriate tools in many cases involving animal abuse. But the animal abuse sections encompassed by this bill include conduct which can involve neglect of an animal or other conduct that does not necessarily indicate a mental disturbance on the part of the defendant. Requiring a psychological or psychiatric evaluation in every case will cause expensive mental health evaluations to be imposed in circumstances where they do not assist in fashioning an appropriate sentence for a defendant. In addition, mental health evaluations are often conducted prior to the time a defendant is convicted. The evaluation might be initiated by the defense or at the suggestion of the court to assist in determining the proper sentence. This bill would require a psychiatric or psychological evaluation after a defendant is convicted and placed on probation, even if a satisfactory evaluation had been conducted at an earlier point in the case.
   
   The court, with assistance from the district attorney and defense counsel, is well situated to determine which cases involving animal abuse are appropriate for a mental health evaluation based on an individualized evaluation of the defendant and the circumstances of the case.
   
3. Animal Owner Education Class: This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation or a suspended sentence for one of the specified offenses to an animal, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course. The bill specifies that if an owner education class it ordered it shall be one of the following:
   
   1. An online course approved by the State Department of Education;
      
   2. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state; or
      
   3. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, humane society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
      

The court already has the power to order a responsible animal education class as a condition of probation if it is appropriate and available to a defendant. This bill would place limits on the type of responsible animal owner education course a court could order as a condition of probation. It is not clear why such a class would be limited to the categories described by this bill.

1. Argument in Support: According to Animal Legal Defense Fund, “There is no specialization required for treatment for animal abusers – underlying causes may differ, from conduct disorder to anger management and beyond – so there are many mental health providers that can be available to conduct evaluations and provide treatment. The Animals & Society Institute is one example of an organization offering resources for mental health providers to treat animal abusers such as assessment tools and tailored treatment for multiple underlying conditions. SB 580 only requires a mental health evaluation and only for specified animal cruelty crimes for which there may be an underlying mental health issue. Such an evaluation will: 1) Ensure that those who have a mental illness have the opportunity to receive treatment; and 2) Ensure that those who are found to have an underlying mental health issue get a recommendation for appropriate treatment. Treating mental health issues – particularly as tied to animal abuse – is not a one-size-fits all approach and it is crucial that the criminal justice system strive to order full treatments only where appropriate, and to narrowly-tailor treatments for the most effective rehabilitation for an individual offender.
   
   “While not every animal abuser necessarily has an underlying mental health issue, nearly all offenders can benefit from humane education instruction. Offenders who commit domestic violence or child abuse are required to participate in batterer’s counseling and parenting courses, respectively. As animal abuse is linked to these other crimes, it is only reasonable that humane education/responsible pet ownership courses, be a tool that judges can utilize as part of sentencing for animal abusers. These courses encourage empathy and promote understanding of the need for compassion and respect for animals. Additionally, these courses teach proper care for animals. In cases of neglect, many individuals simply do not know proper animal care or recognize animals as sentient beings. These courses are instrumental in helping to reduce recidivism for low-level offenders. Moreover, most classes are relatively inexpensive, and per DDA Guthrie, offenders can pay over time or request a reduced rate, thus addressing any concern about payment being too burdensome for some offenders.

“Mental health evaluations for certain animal abusers, as well as humane education courses, are both important tools that should be available to courts. These are both crucial for rehabilitation of animal abusers and will have a significant impact on the reduction of recidivism rates among animal abusers as well on preventing these abusers from escalating to human victims. It is long overdue that our laws, law enforcement, and correctional system recognize that animal abuse and its probable escalation to further violence is a significant issue and we must take steps as early as possible to prevent more victims. We commend Senator Wilk for introducing a holistic approach toward educating and rehabilitating those that commit such offenses.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the Judicial Council, “The council has several concerns about the bill. First, it interferes with the court’s discretion to order evaluations when appropriate. Also, because the court is ordering the evaluation, the court would be responsible for paying for the valuation, which can be quite costly. Further, while an evaluation may generally be needed for some of the enumerated crimes (e.g. sexually assaulting an animal), the crimes of ‘improperly caring for any animal,’ ‘overworking an animal,’ and ‘injuring a police dog’ do not necessarily evoke immediate concerns about the mental health of the individual. Thus, requiring courts to automatically order and pay for mental health evaluations is a waste of court resources.
   
   “Moreover, the bill appears to require the mental health evaluation after conviction and sentencing, which is inconsistent with others laws pertaining to mental health evaluations. Typically, a mental health evaluation is requested by the defense and/or prosecution as a part of the criminal proceeding. If a court also ordered a mental health evaluation those evaluations would all be considered by the court in determining sentencing and the terms and conditions of probation, including mental health treatment as a term of probation. As written, the legislation requires the evaluation and potential order for treatment to occur after probation is granted, which will result in additional and unnecessary court proceedings.
   
   “Finally, the requirement that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule is problematic because there are no provisions in the bill explaining what entities will fund the difference in cost between what the individual can pay and what the service will cost.”
   
2. Related Legislation: AB 611 (Nazarian), would require a person convicted of a violation of sexual contact with an animal to participate counseling as directed by the court. AB 611 has been referred to the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 1024 (Wilk), of the 2018-2018 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 3040 (Nazarian), would have prohibited sexual contact, as defined, with any animal, and would require a person convicted of a violation of sexual contact with an animal to participate counseling as directed by the court. AB 3040 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 628 (Chen), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have clarified procedures for notification of animal owners regarding hearings and payment of costs when an animal is seized or impounded. AB 628 was never heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      
   4. AB 2052 (Williams), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have required a person sentenced for two or more current convictions for specified animal abuse and animal cruelty offenses to be sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. AB 2052 failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. AB 794 (Linder), Chapter 201, Statues of 2015, expanded criminal acts against law enforcement animals to include offenses against animals used by volunteers acting under the direct supervision of a peace officer.
      
   6. AB 2278 (Levine), of the 2015-2015 Legislative Session, would have clarified procedures for notification of animal owners regarding hearings and payment of costs when an animal is seized or impounded. AB 2278 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   7. SB 1500 (Lieu), Chapter 598, Statutes of 2012, allows pre-conviction forfeiture of an individual’s seized animals in animal abuse and neglect cases.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Wellness Action
Animal Wellness Foundation
California Police Chiefs Association
Humane Society of the United States

Oppose

American Civil Liberties Union of California
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Judicial Council of California
San Diego Humane Society

Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 580

Author: Wilk (R), et al.

Amended: 5/22/19

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/9/19

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Morrell, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: Animal abuse: probation: treatment

SOURCE: Animal Legal Defense Fund

DIGEST:

This bill requires a mental health evaluation when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses and to have the court consider whether to order a responsible owner education course when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses.

Senate Floor Amendments of 5/22/19 make a technical change and add coauthors.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)
2. Provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)
3. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)
5. Provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)
6. Provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill:

1. Deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.
2. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for: sexually assaulting an animal; poisoning an animal; improperly caring for an animal; injuring a police dog; maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal; or, overworking an animal, the court shall order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment, at the convicted person’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
3. Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
4. Provides that an indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has the ability to pay a nominal fee.
5. Provides that county mental health departments or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this section only for those person who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care.
6. Provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.
7. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for one of 32 animal related misdemeanors and felonies, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course.
8. Provides that the responsible animal owner education course shall be one of the following:
9. An online course approved by the California Department of Education.
10. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
11. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

Background

1. Mental health evaluation

Under existing law if a person is granted probation for animal cruelty the court shall order the person to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill provides instead that if a person is granted probation or receives a suspended sentence for: animal cruelty; sex assault on an animal; willful poisoning of an animal; improper care of an animal; abandoning an animal; or, harming a police animal, in addition to any other terms of probation, that person shall be ordered to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment that the court determines to be appropriate based on the evaluation. The defendant will be required to pay for the treatment unless the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay. For people unable to pay the court may develop a sliding scale. An indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant is able to do so. This bill provides that county mental health or Medi-Cal shall only be responsible for the payment for those eligible for those programs.

1. Animal owner education class

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation or a suspended sentence for one of the specified offenses to an animal, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course. The owner education class shall be one of the following:

1. An online course approved by the California Department of Education.
2. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
3. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for courts to pay for counseling for defendants who are financially unable to pay. (General Fund*)
• County Behavior Health Departments: Unknown costs to county mental health departments to cover counseling costs for defendants who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care, as specified, or the targeted population criteria, as specified.

* Trial Court Trust Fund

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/22/19)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (source)

Animals & Society Institute

Social Compassion in Legislation

The Humane Society of the United States

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/22/19)

California Public Defenders Association

San Diego Humane Society

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Humane Society of the United States supports this bill stating:

Through the HSUS’ Pets for Life Campaign, we have seen that most people tend to treat their animals the way they saw their parents or neighbors treat animals. In many cases they aren’t familiar with animal cruelty laws and have been surprised to learn there are felony penalties for animal cruelty crimes. Since neglect is the most common animal cruelty complaint made to most animal welfare agencies, teaching people how to properly care for their animals, and how the state expects them to treat animals, is vitally important to ending the cycle of neglect and the suffering it causes.

The importance of intervention and counseling is not limited to neglect, though. There is abundant evidence documenting the connection between animal cruelty and human violence. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology in the past 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders, including mass shooters, frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of child abuse and spousal abuse. Animal sexual abuse has been identified as the number one indicator a person will sexually abuse a child and the offenders have more in common with pedophiles than animal abusers.

The reasons behind animal cruelty is varied. A person who viciously beats a dog may need anger management counseling, but a person who sexually assaults an animal needs treatment tailored to sex offenders. SB 580 allows for an evaluation of the offender so a qualified mental health professional can provide direction to the court on the best course of treatment. In some cases, that may be an education course and others may need structured psychiatric counseling.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The San Diego Humane Society is concerned about the elimination of the mandatory counseling:

While we understand what you are trying to achieve with SB 580, we cannot support the elimination of mandated counseling. There are too many incidents where a psychological evaluation may not identify a specific problem that counseling could address. For example a family having financial problems and an animal is injured because the person is striking out due to frustration and stress. An evaluation likely won’t identify a psychological disorder, but mandated counseling could address the root cause of the outburst-the stress over financial mismanagement.

We propose maintaining the requirement for mandatory counseling for any defendant who is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction unless the psychological or psychiatric evaluation results in the recommendation for a greater level of treatment, which they shall undergo.

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

5/23/19 17:14:59

5/23/19 17:14:59

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 580

Author: Wilk (R), et al.

Amended: 5/17/19

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/9/19

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Morrell, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: Animal abuse: probation: treatment

SOURCE: Animal Legal Defense Fund

DIGEST:

This bill requires a mental health evaluation when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses and to have the court consider whether to order a responsible owner education course when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)
2. Provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)
3. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)
5. Provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to six months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)
6. Provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill:

1. Deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.
2. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for: sexually assaulting an animal; poisoning an animal; improperly caring for an animal; injuring a police dog; maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal; or, overworking an animal, the court shall order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment, at the convicted person’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
3. Provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.
4. Provides that an indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has the ability to pay a nominal fee.
5. Provides that county mental health departments or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this section only for those person who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care.
6. Provides that a finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, and any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to this section, shall be confidential and shall not be released or used in connection with any civil proceeding without the defendant’s consent.
7. Provides that when a defendant is granted probation for one of 32 animal related misdemeanors and felonies, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course.
8. Provides that the responsible animal owner education course shall be one of the following:
9. An online course approved by the California Department of Education.
10. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
11. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

Background

1. Mental health evaluation

Under existing law if a person is granted probation for animal cruelty the court shall order the person to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill provides instead that if a person is granted probation or receives a suspended sentence for: animal cruelty; sex assault on an animal; willful poisoning of an animal; improper care of an animal; abandoning an animal; or, harming a police animal, in addition to any other terms of probation, that person shall be ordered to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment that the court determines to be appropriate based on the evaluation. The defendant will be required to pay for the treatment unless the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay. For people unable to pay the court may develop a sliding scale. An indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant is able to do so. This bill provides that county mental health or Medi-Cal shall only be responsible for the payment for those eligible for those programs.

1. Animal owner education class

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation or a suspended sentence for one of the specified offenses to an animal, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course. The owner education class shall be one of the following:

1. An online course approved by the California Department of Education.
2. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
3. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for courts to pay for counseling for defendants who are financially unable to pay. (General Fund*)
• County Behavior Health Departments: Unknown costs to county mental health departments to cover counseling costs for defendants who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care, as specified, or the targeted population criteria, as specified.

* Trial Court Trust Fund

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/19)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (source)

Animals & Society Institute

California Police Chiefs Association

Social Compassion in Legislation

The Humane Society of the United States

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/19)

California Public Defenders Association

San Diego Humane Society

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Humane Society of the United States supports this bill stating:

Through the HSUS’ Pets for Life Campaign, we have seen that most people tend to treat their animals the way they saw their parents or neighbors treat animals. In many cases they aren’t familiar with animal cruelty laws and have been surprised to learn there are felony penalties for animal cruelty crimes. Since neglect is the most common animal cruelty complaint made to most animal welfare agencies, teaching people how to properly care for their animals, and how the state expects them to treat animals, is vitally important to ending the cycle of neglect and the suffering it causes.

The importance of intervention and counseling is not limited to neglect, though. There is abundant evidence documenting the connection between animal cruelty and human violence. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology in the past 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders, including mass shooters, frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of child abuse and spousal abuse. Animal sexual abuse has been identified as the number one indicator a person will sexually abuse a child and the offenders have more in common with pedophiles than animal abusers.

The reasons behind animal cruelty is varied. A person who viciously beats a dog may need anger management counseling, but a person who sexually assaults an animal needs treatment tailored to sex offenders. SB 580 allows for an evaluation of the offender so a qualified mental health professional can provide direction to the court on the best course of treatment. In some cases, that may be an education course and others may need structured psychiatric counseling.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The San Diego Humane Society is concerned about the elimination of the mandatory counseling:

While we understand what you are trying to achieve with SB 580, we cannot support the elimination of mandated counseling. There are too many incidents where a psychological evaluation may not identify a specific problem that counseling could address. For example a family having financial problems and an animal is injured because the person is striking out due to frustration and stress. An evaluation likely won’t identify a psychological disorder, but mandated counseling could address the root cause of the outburst-the stress over financial mismanagement.

We propose maintaining the requirement for mandatory counseling for any defendant who is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction unless the psychological or psychiatric evaluation results in the recommendation for a greater level of treatment, which they shall undergo.

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

5/20/19 13:00:57

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 580 (Wilk) - Animal abuse: probation: treatment

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 16, 2019

Bill Summary:

SB 580 would require a defendant who is granted probation or a suspended sentence for specified offenses against animals to undergo treatment, as specified, instead of completing counseling and would require the court to consider ordering the defendant who is granted probation or a suspended sentence to complete a responsible animal owner education course, as specified, for the same and additional offenses.

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for courts to pay for counseling for defendants who are financially unable to pay. (General Fund*)
• County Behavior Health Departments: Unknown costs to county mental health departments to cover counseling costs for defendants who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care, as specified, or the targeted population criteria, as specified.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Author Amendments:

Provide that defendant progress reports are confidential without the defendant's consent to release.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 580 (Wilk) - Animal abuse: probation: treatment

Bill Summary:

SB 580 would require a defendant who is granted probation or a suspended sentence for specified offenses against animals to undergo treatment, as specified, instead of completing counseling and would require the court to consider ordering the defendant who is granted probation or a suspended sentence to complete a responsible animal owner education course, as specified, for the same and additional offenses.

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for courts to pay for counseling for defendants who are financially unable to pay. (General Fund*)
• County Behavior Health Departments: Unknown costs to county mental health departments to cover counseling costs for defendants who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care, as specified, or the targeted population criteria, as specified.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Background:

It is a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. It also is a crime to sexually assault an animal, protected as specified, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the perpetrator. Additionally, a person is prohibited, without the consent of the owner, from willfully administering poison to an animal, except as provided. These offenses are misdemeanors punishable by up to six months imprisonment in the county jail and/or a base fine of up to $1,000. A person who is convicted of such an offense and consequently sentenced to a term of probation must complete and pay for counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders, as specified.

In all criminal actions and juvenile court proceedings requiring expert evidence, on order of the court, the compensation for the expert to investigate is to be a charged against and paid by the county in which the action or proceeding is pending, except that the court must pay if the expert is appointed for the court’s needs. (Evid. Code, § 731, subd. (a).)

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

• Require the court to order a person convicted of one of a list of specified animal-related offenses to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment, at the person’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation, if the person is granted probation or a suspended sentence.
• Allow the court to develop a sliding fee schedule based on the defendant’s ability to pay if the court finds that the person is financially unable to pay for counseling.
• Allow an indigent defendant to negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but would require that person to pay a nominal fee if they have the ability to pay the nominal fee.
• Require the county mental health departments or Medi-Cal to be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this measure only for those persons who meet the medical necessity criteria for mental health managed care, as specified, or the targeted population criteria, as specified.
• Require the counseling mentioned above to be in addition to any other terms and conditions of probation, including any term of imprisonment and fine.
• Require the court to consider ordering a person who is convicted of one of a list of specified offenses to complete a responsible animal owner education course, as described below, if the person is granted probation or a suspended sentence.
• Specify that the responsible animal owner education course mentioned above be one of the following:
  • An online course approved by the State Department of Education.
  • An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
  • A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, humane society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
• Delete the requirement that a defendant granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding, or killing a living animal complete counseling.

Related Legislation:

SB 1024 (Wilk, 2018) was substantially similar to this bill. SB 1024 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: SB 580 Hearing Date: April 9, 2019

Subject: Animal Abuse: Probation: Treatment

HISTORY

Source: Animal Legal Defense Fund

Prior Legislation: SB 1024 (Wilk) held Assembly Appropriations 2018

Support: Animals & Society Institute; California Police Chiefs Association; the Humane Society of the United States; Social Compassion in Legislation

Opposition: California Public Defenders Association; San Diego Humane Society

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require a mental health evaluation when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses and to have the court consider whether to order a responsible owner education course when a person receives probation for specified animal offenses.

Existing law provides that any person who sexually assaults any animal for the reason of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 plus approximately 310% penalty assessments for a total fine of $4,100. (Penal Code § 268.5)

Existing law provides that every person who, without the consent of the owner, willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 596)

Existing law provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street etc. without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597.1)

Existing law provides that every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county etc. without proper care and attention shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 597f)

Existing law provides that any person who injures a police dog or horse is guilty of a misdemeanor or, if the injury is serious, a wobbler. The penalty for the misdemeanors are punishable by up to 6 months in jail/and or fine of $1,000 ($4,100 with penalty assessments). (Penal Code § 600)

Existing law provides that if a person is granted probation for maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, wounding or killing an animal, he or she shall order the defendant to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. (Penal Code § 597)

This bill deletes the counseling and treatment requirement.

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation for: sexually assaulting an animal; poisoning an animal; improperly caring for an animal; injuring a police dog; maliciously and intentionally injuring an animal; or, overworking an animal, the court shall order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment, at the convicted person’s expense, that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.

This bill provides that if the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay for counseling, the court may develop a sliding fee schedule.

This bill provides that an indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has the ability to pay a nominal fee.

This bill provides that county mental health departments or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling required by this section only for those person who meet the medical ne3cessity criterial for mental health managed care.

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation for one of 32 animal related misdemeanors and felonies, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course.

This bill provides that the responsible animal owner education course shall be one of the following:

1. An online course approved by the State Department of Education.
2. An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
3. A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Animal abuse is among the most misunderstood and mishandled crimes by our criminal justice laws and by society as a whole. There is an established link between cruelty to animals and violence toward humans — regularly referred to as “The Link.” This link makes it critically important that cruelty toward animals be taken seriously by law enforcement, and by society at large.

Current sentencing options for animal abuse crimes are largely punitive measures that do little to help end the cycle of violence or rehabilitate offenders. Fines, jail time, and forced animal surrender are the primarily utilized options, which may not always be the most effective means to address the underlying issues leading to animal abuse as observed by law enforcement, mental health and animal welfare experts. Appropriate mental health counseling and education are important tools that can benefit public safety as well as reduce offender recidivism rates.

2. Mental health evaluation

Under existing law if a person is granted probation for animal cruelty the court shall order the person to complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.

This bill would provide instead that if a person is granted probation or receives a suspended sentence for: animal cruelty; sex assault on an animal; willful poisoning of an animal; improper care of an animal; abandoning an animal; or, harming a police animal, in addition to any other terms of probation, that person shall be ordered to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment that the court determines to be appropriate based on the evaluation. The defendant will be required to pay for the treatment unless the court finds that the defendant is financially unable to pay. For people unable to pay the court may develop a sliding scale. An indigent defendant my negotiate a deferred payment schedule but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant is able to do so. The bill provides that county mental health or Medi-Cal shall only be responsible for the payment for those eligible for those programs.

Is it appropriate to eliminate the mandatory counseling for animal cruelty and instead require a mental health evaluation for more offenses? Should all these offenders have a mental health evaluation? Is there specific counseling that has been shown to reduce recidivism in these types of cases? If the animal abuse is a result of a mental illness, what types of counseling should a person have? Will a court have an understanding of what type of counseling is appropriate based on the mental health evaluation?

3. Animal owner education class

This bill provides that when a defendant is granted probation or a suspended sentence for one of the specified offenses to an animal, the court shall consider whether to order that person to complete a responsible animal owner education course. The owner education class shall be one of the following:

• An online course approved by the State Department of Education.
• An online course approved for a similar purpose in another state.
• A live course sponsored by a municipal animal shelter, human society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

How much will these coursed cost and should the court consider ability to pay when ordering the course? Is there evidence that these types of courses would reduce recidivism?

4. Argument in Support

The Humane Society of the United States supports this bill stating:

Through the HSUS’ Pets for Life Campaign, we have seen that most people tend to treat their animals the way they saw their parents or neighbors treat animals. In many cases they aren’t familiar with animal cruelty laws and have been surprised to learn there are felony penalties for animal cruelty crimes. Since neglect is the most common animal cruelty complaint made to most animal welfare agencies, teaching people how to properly care for their animals, and how the state expects them to treat animals, is vitally important to ending the cycle of neglect and the suffering it causes.

The importance of intervention and counseling is not limited to neglect, though. There is abundant evidence documenting the connection between animal cruelty and human violence. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology in the past 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders, including mass shooters, frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of child abuse and spousal abuse. Animal sexual abuse has been identified as the number one indicator a person will sexually abuse a child and the offenders have more in common with pedophiles than animal abusers.

The reasons behind animal cruelty is varied. A person who viciously beats a dog may need anger management counseling, but a person who sexually assaults an animal needs treatment tailored to sex offenders. SB 580 allows for an evaluation of the offender so a qualified mental health professional can provide direction to the court on the best course of treatment. In some cases, that may be an education course and others may need structured psychiatric counseling.

5. Argument in Opposition

The San Diego Human Society is concerned about the elimination of the mandatory counseling:

While we understand what you are trying to achieve with SB 580, we cannot support the elimination of mandated counseling. There are too many incidents where a psychological evaluation may not identify a specific problem that counseling could address. For example a family having financial problems and an animal is injured because the person is striking out due to frustration and stress. An evaluation likely won’t identify a psychological disorder, but mandated counseling could address the root cause of the outburst-the stress over financial mismanagement.

We propose maintaining the requirement for mandatory counseling for any defendant who is granted probation for an animal cruelty conviction unless the psychological or psychiatric evaluation results in the recommendation for a greater level of treatment, which they shall undergo.

-- END –