Existing law authorizes a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer to take possession of a stray or abandoned animal in specified circumstances, including when the animal is kept without proper care and attention, as specified. Existing law provides that if an animal is seized pursuant to those provisions or pursuant to a warrant, the owner is personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Existing law deems the animal to then be abandoned by the owner under specified circumstances, including if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges and take possession of the animal.

This bill would make those provisions apply to animals seized pursuant to any provision of California law.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer to take possession of a stray or abandoned animal in specified circumstances, including when the animal is kept without proper care and attention, as specified. Existing law provides that if an animal is seized pursuant to those provisions or pursuant to a warrant, the owner is personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Existing law deems the animal to then be abandoned by the owner under specified circumstances, including if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges and take possession of the animal.

This bill would make those provisions apply to animals seized pursuant to any provision of California law.

Existing law prohibits various acts of abuse toward animals, including, among others, inflicting unnecessary cruelty or abusing an animal in any manner, including, but not limited to, maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding an animal.

This bill would, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, authorize specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time. The bill would additionally, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, authorize the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals of any kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prohibits various acts of abuse toward animals, including, among others, inflicting unnecessary cruelty or abusing an animal in any manner, including, but not limited to, maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding an animal.

This bill would, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, authorize specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time. The bill would additionally, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, authorize the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals of any kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law prohibits various acts of abuse toward animals, including, among others, inflicting unnecessary cruelty or abusing an animal in any manner, including, but not limited to, maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding an animal.

This bill would, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, authorize specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified. The bill would additionally, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, authorize the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, with animals of any kind, kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes the Government Code and prescribes general provisions for purposes of its interpretation.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the provision naming the Government Code.

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 2344

Author:(Haney)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Assembly Public Safety

Updates animal seizure and forfeiture statute to state that properly seized animals, as specified, includes animals seized pursuant to any other provision of California law.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur in Senate Amendments

Delete the previous version of the bill and update existing law to state where an animal is properly seized, as defined, including an animal seized pursuant to any other provision of California law, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Further, if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be humanely euthanized or otherwise properly disposed of by the seizing agency.

COMMENTS

Effect of the Bill: Existing law, largely codified in Penal Code section 597.1, establishes procedures for forfeiture and the costs of care for seized animals in criminal cases. This area of the law created a defined procedure for cases where an owner does not pay costs of care for a seized animal or fails to retake ownership of a seized animal. Existing law, however, does not explicitly apply to animals seized outside the confines of the statute, like cases where warrantless seizures are employed. The amendments to AB 2344 clarify that existing law would apply to animals properly seized pursuant to any provision of California law, not just those defined in statute. Amendments to this bill also gut the remainder of the bill, which would have established a procedure for cases where a defendant fails to appear. Those types of cases are no longer covered by the amended bill.

According to the Author

According to the author, “Animals rescued from abuse should not be stuck in cages for months or even years just because a court case is dragging on. But that is exactly what can happen today. While cases remain open, rescued animals can be left in shelters or animal control facilities far longer than necessary, taking up limited space and resources that other animals also need. The longer they wait, the greater the risk of stress, illness, declining health, and lasting behavioral trauma.

“AB 2344 offers a simple fix. California already has a process that allows rescued animals to be permanently removed from an abusive owner before the underlying criminal case is resolved. This bill expands that process so it can be used in more animal abuse and neglect cases.

“That means rescued animals can move out of overcrowded shelters and into safe, stable homes sooner. AB 2344 protects animal welfare, eases pressure on shelters, and helps ensure animals rescued from abuse get the care and second chance they deserve.”

Arguments in Support

According to the San Diego Humane Society, “Current law establishes important procedures under Penal Code section 597.1 for determining responsibility for the cost of caring for seized animals and, when an owner does not pay those costs or reclaim an animal within the prescribed period, allowing the animal to be considered abandoned and made available for appropriate disposition. However, the statute does not clearly apply those provisions to every animal lawfully seized under California law.

“As amended, AB 2344 provides a focused and practical solution. The bill clarifies that the existing cost-of-care and abandonment provisions in Penal Code section 597.1 apply to animals properly seized pursuant to any provision of California law—not only to animals seized directly under section 597.1 or pursuant to a search warrant. Animals require the same care after a lawful seizure regardless of the particular legal authority under which that seizure occurred, and the agencies responsible for their care need a clear and consistent process for resolving their status.

“We especially appreciate your willingness to substantially revise the bill in response to stakeholder concerns. Earlier versions would have created a separate forfeiture process tied to a defendant’s failure to appear, imposing additional responsibilities on animal care agencies, prosecutors, and courts while potentially prolonging uncertainty for the animals

involved. The August 21 amendments eliminate that duplicative structure and instead address the underlying statutory gap through an established framework that agencies, courts, and animal owners already understand.

“This narrower approach will help prevent animals from remaining unnecessarily in shelters for the duration of lengthy criminal proceedings, reduce avoidable costs and capacity burdens on public and nonprofit animal care agencies, and allow animals whose ownership has been lawfully resolved to move more quickly toward appropriate placement.”

Arguments in Opposition

No longer applicable.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

“Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

“Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)”

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-1

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004490

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 2344

Author:(Haney)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Assembly Public Safety

Updates animal seizure and forfeiture statute to state that properly seized animals, as specified, includes animals seized pursuant to any other provision of California law.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur in Senate Amendments

Delete the previous version of the bill and update existing law to state where an animal is properly seized, as defined, including an animal seized pursuant to any other provision of California law, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Further, if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be humanely euthanized or otherwise properly disposed of by the seizing agency.

COMMENTS

Effect of the Bill: Existing law, largely codified in Penal Code section 597.1, establishes procedures for forfeiture and the costs of care for seized animals in criminal cases. This area of the law created a defined procedure for cases where an owner does not pay costs of care for a seized animal or fails to retake ownership of a seized animal. Existing law, however, does not explicitly apply to animals seized outside the confines of the statute, like cases where warrantless seizures are employed. The amendments to AB 2344 clarify that existing law would apply to animals properly seized pursuant to any provision of California law, not just those defined in statute. Amendments to this bill also gut the remainder of the bill, which would have established a procedure for cases where a defendant fails to appear. Those types of cases are no longer covered by the amended bill.

According to the Author

According to the author, “Animals rescued from abuse should not be stuck in cages for months or even years just because a court case is dragging on. But that is exactly what can happen today. While cases remain open, rescued animals can be left in shelters or animal control facilities far longer than necessary, taking up limited space and resources that other animals also need. The longer they wait, the greater the risk of stress, illness, declining health, and lasting behavioral trauma.

“AB 2344 offers a simple fix. California already has a process that allows rescued animals to be permanently removed from an abusive owner before the underlying criminal case is resolved. This bill expands that process so it can be used in more animal abuse and neglect cases.

“That means rescued animals can move out of overcrowded shelters and into safe, stable homes sooner. AB 2344 protects animal welfare, eases pressure on shelters, and helps ensure animals rescued from abuse get the care and second chance they deserve.”

Arguments in Support

According to the San Diego Humane Society, “Current law establishes important procedures under Penal Code section 597.1 for determining responsibility for the cost of caring for seized animals and, when an owner does not pay those costs or reclaim an animal within the prescribed period, allowing the animal to be considered abandoned and made available for appropriate disposition. However, the statute does not clearly apply those provisions to every animal lawfully seized under California law.

“As amended, AB 2344 provides a focused and practical solution. The bill clarifies that the existing cost-of-care and abandonment provisions in Penal Code section 597.1 apply to animals properly seized pursuant to any provision of California law—not only to animals seized directly under section 597.1 or pursuant to a search warrant. Animals require the same care after a lawful seizure regardless of the particular legal authority under which that seizure occurred, and the agencies responsible for their care need a clear and consistent process for resolving their status.

“We especially appreciate your willingness to substantially revise the bill in response to stakeholder concerns. Earlier versions would have created a separate forfeiture process tied to a defendant’s failure to appear, imposing additional responsibilities on animal care agencies, prosecutors, and courts while potentially prolonging uncertainty for the animals

involved. The August 21 amendments eliminate that duplicative structure and instead address the underlying statutory gap through an established framework that agencies, courts, and animal owners already understand.

“This narrower approach will help prevent animals from remaining unnecessarily in shelters for the duration of lengthy criminal proceedings, reduce avoidable costs and capacity burdens on public and nonprofit animal care agencies, and allow animals whose ownership has been lawfully resolved to move more quickly toward appropriate placement.”

Arguments in Opposition

No longer applicable.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

“Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

“Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)”

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-1

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004490

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2344

Author: Haney (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/23/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Animal abuse: forfeiture

SOURCE: Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill 1) authorizes, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified; 2) authorizes those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time; and 3) authorizes, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals of any kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/26 strike the postseizure forfeiture petition process, outlined above, that included provisions for a defendant who failed to appear, and reposition the bill’s forfeiture petition process into existing code by expanding an existing forfeiture petition process, that applied only to some seized animals, to include any animal properly seized under any provision of California law.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 597.1, subd. (a).)
2. States that a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer may take possession of a stray or abandoned animal, as specified, and that the full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized because it is injured, abandoned, stray, or seized under a search warrant, shall constitute a lien on the animal, and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subds. (a)-(d).)
3. States that an authorized officer, as specified above, who seizes or impounds an animal under Penal Code section 597.1, based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, before the commencement of any criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)
4. Establishes procedures for postseizure hearings when an officer seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required, as specified, under Penal Code section 597.1. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(1)-(4).)
5. Requires that for any animal properly seized for misdemeanor neglect or pursuant to a search warrant, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (h).)
6. Requires that if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under this section and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be humanely euthanized or otherwise properly disposed of by the seizing agency. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (h).)
7. Provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)
8. States that the prosecuting agency in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any defined crimes may, in conjunction with the criminal proceeding, file a petition for forfeiture, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (a)(1).)
9. Establishes procedures for forfeiture proceedings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (c).)

This bill expands the current postseizure hearing procedure, that currently applies only to animals seized because of misdemeanor neglect and animals seized pursuant to a search warrant, so that it will now apply to any animal properly seized under any provision of California law.

Background

A seized animal may wind up being held at a shelter from various paths. Animals may end up in a shelter if they are lost or considered vicious. Stray or lost animals are held for a certain amount of time, with public notice or with notice to the known owner. (Food & Ag. Code, § 31107.) If an animal is considered vicious, while an animal control officer or law enforcement officer petitions a superior court to have a hearing for the vicious animal, which cities and counties may establish as administrative proceedings, the animal may be held at the shelter. (Food & Ag. Code, § 31621.) An animal may be seized if it is stray or abandoned. (Pen. Code, § 597.1.) It may be seized pursuant to a search warrant. (Ibid.) It may be seized if an officer sees it in immediate danger. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)

If the need for immediate seizure is not present, and before criminal proceedings have commenced, an agency must offer a pre-seizure hearing to the owner of the animal where the owner can present evidence as to why the animal should not be seized. If the owner does not participate, the hearing officer may order that the animal be seized for its own protection. Rarely are seized animals returned if the owner is unable to pay for release.

If an animal is in immediate danger, a responding officer is required by law to seize it and provide care and treatment for it until the matter is later resolved through the legal process. Seized animals are retained under the authority of the court. Some seized animals, including those seized pursuant to a search warrant, can be released following an established postseizure hearing. However, for animals not seized pursuant a search warrant or as otherwise specified, seized animals remain on a court hold until the criminal case is resolved.

Seized animals on a court hold could be fostered or sent to rescues. However, because seized animals are evidence and chain of custody laws regarding animals are unclear, shelters are reticent to place animals in foster homes where the animal could potentially escape, jeopardizing the criminal case. Therefore, these animals are often held for months or even years, waiting for the case to resolve.

Because current law requires that if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under this section and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be humanely euthanized or otherwise properly disposed of by the seizing agency, current law does not require an individual’s ability to pay be considered when forfeiting their ownership of their animal.

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

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/2026)

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (co-source)

Social Compassion in Legislation (co-source)

Angel's Furry Friends Rescue
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Rescue Mission
Animal Rescuers for Change
Animal Wellness Action
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
City of Los Angeles
City of Seal Beach
Compassionate Bay
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Eartheart
Feline Lucky Adventures
Fix Our Shelters
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund
Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation
Lockwood Animal Rescue Center
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals
Multiple Individuals
NY 4 Whales
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Plant-Based Advocates
Project Minnie
Rabbit Savior
Real Good Rescue
Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Canine Condition
The Pet Loss Support Group
The Spayce Project
Underdog Heroes, INC.
Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/2026)

Initiate Justice

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Natalia DaSilva Telles / PUB. S. /

8/24/26 10:56:34

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2344

Author: Haney (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/23/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Animal abuse: forfeiture

SOURCE: Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office;

Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, authorizes specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified. This bill authorizes those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time. This bill, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, authorizes the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals of any kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, upon the conviction of a person charged with a defined animal cruelty violation, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency be adjudged by the court to be forfeited. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 597, subd. (g)(1).)
2. States that a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer may take possession of a stray or abandoned animal, as specified, and that the full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized because it is injured, abandoned, stray, or seized under a search warrant, shall constitute a lien on the animal, and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subds. (a)-(d).)
3. States that an authorized officer, as specified above, who seizes or impounds an animal under Penal Code section 597.1, based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, before the commencement of any criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)
4. Establishes procedures for postseizure hearings, in certain circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(1)-(4).)
5. Provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)
6. States that the prosecuting agency in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any defined crimes may, in conjunction with the criminal proceeding, file a petition for forfeiture, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (a)(1).)
7. Establishes procedures for forfeiture proceedings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (c).)

This bill:

1. Provides that in a criminal case alleging violations of enumerated animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined.
2. Authorizes those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time.
3. Requires the prosecuting attorney to file the petition for forfeiture with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the defined crimes.
4. Requires the prosecuting attorney to make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for at least three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal shelter in possession of the animal, as specified.
5. Requires that the seizing agency or prosecution shall provide the animal shelter in possession of the animal with any information necessary to comply, as specified.
6. Requires that no hearing be conducted pursuant to this section if, after notice of the hearing, the defendant appears in court for the underlying criminal case or is otherwise returned to custody.
7. States that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be deemed forfeited by the court and thereafter shall be transferred to an animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
8. Provides that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.
9. Creates other procedural provisions.

Background

A seized animal may wind up being held at a shelter from various paths. For example, an animal may be seized if it is stray or abandoned. It may be seized pursuant to a search warrant. It may be seized if an officer sees it in immediate danger.

If the need for immediate seizure is not present, and before criminal proceedings have commenced, an agency must offer a pre-seizure hearing to the owner of the animal where the owner can present evidence as to why the animal should not be seized. If the owner does not participate, the hearing officer may order that the animal be seized for its own protection. Rarely are seized animals returned if the owner is unable to pay for release.

If an animal is in immediate danger, a responding officer is required by law to seize it and provide care and treatment for it until the matter is later resolved through the legal process. Seized animals are retained under the authority of the court. Some seized animals, including those seized pursuant to a search warrant, can be released following an established postseizure hearing. However, for animals not seized pursuant a search warrant or as otherwise specified, seized animals remain on a court hold until the criminal case is resolved.

Seized animals on a court hold could be fostered or sent to rescues. However, because the animals are evidence and chain of custody laws regarding animals are unclear, shelters are reticent to place animals in foster homes where the animal could potentially escape, jeopardizing the criminal case. Therefore, these animals are often held for months or even years, waiting for the case to resolve.

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

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (co-source)
Social Compassion in Legislation (co-source)
Angel's Furry Friends Rescue

Animal Rescue Mission

Animal Rescuers for Change

Animal Wellness Action

Berkeley Animal Rights Center

Better Together Forever

Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption

City of Los Angeles

City of Seal Beach

Compassionate Bay

Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue

Eartheart

Feline Lucky Adventures

Fix Our Shelters

Giantmecha Syndicate

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund

Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation

Lockwood Animal Rescue Center

Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation

Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals

Multiple Individuals

NY 4 Whales

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue

Plant-Based Advocates

Project Minnie

Rabbit Savior

Real Good Rescue

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation

Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School

The Canine Condition

The Pet Loss Support Group

The Spayce Project

Underdog Heroes, INC.

Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

California Animal Welfare Association

California State Association of Counties

Initiate Justice

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

Urban Counties of California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Natalia DaSilva Telles / PUB. S. /

8/19/26 10:24:58

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2344

Author: Haney (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/23/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Animal abuse: forfeiture

SOURCE: Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office;

Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill, in a criminal case alleging a violation of specified animal abuse crimes, authorizes specified entities to request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency 30 days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as specified. The bill authorizes those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time. The bill, if the defendant is granted diversion for those crimes, authorizes the prosecution to request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals of any kind throughout the period of diversion, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, upon the conviction of a person charged with a defined animal cruelty violation, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency be adjudged by the court to be forfeited. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 597, subd. (g)(1).)
2. States that a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer may take possession of a stray or abandoned animal, as specified, and that the full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized because it is injured, abandoned, stray, or seized under a search warrant, shall constitute a lien on the animal, and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subds. (a)-(d).)
3. States that an authorized officer, as specified above, who seizes or impounds an animal under Penal Code section 597.1, based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, before the commencement of any criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)
4. Establishes procedures for postseizure hearings, in certain circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(1)-(4).)
5. Provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)
6. States that the prosecuting agency in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any defined crimes may, in conjunction with the criminal proceeding, file a petition for forfeiture, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (a)(1).)
7. Establishes procedures for forfeiture proceedings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (c).)

This bill:

1. Provides that in a criminal case alleging violations of enumerated animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined.
2. Authorizes those entities to request, and the court to issue, a forfeiture petition within 3 days after a defendant fails to appear in court a 2nd or subsequent time.
3. Requires the prosecuting attorney to file the petition for forfeiture with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the defined crimes.
4. Requires the prosecuting attorney to make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for at least three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal shelter in possession of the animal, as specified.
5. Requires that the seizing agency or prosecution shall provide the animal shelter in possession of the animal with any information necessary to comply, as specified.
6. Requires that no hearing be conducted pursuant to this section if, after notice of the hearing, the defendant appears in court for the underlying criminal case or is otherwise returned to custody.
7. States that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be deemed forfeited by the court and thereafter shall be transferred to an animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
8. Provides that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.
9. Creates other procedural provisions.

Background

A seized animal may wind up being held at a shelter from various paths. For example, an animal may be seized if it is stray or abandoned. It may be seized pursuant to a search warrant. It may be seized if an officer sees it in immediate danger.

If the need for immediate seizure is not present, and before criminal proceedings have commenced, an agency must offer a pre-seizure hearing to the owner of the animal where the owner can present evidence as to why the animal should not be seized. If the owner does not participate, the hearing officer may order that the animal be seized for its own protection. Rarely are seized animals returned if the owner is unable to pay for release.

If an animal is in immediate danger, a responding officer is required by law to seize it and provide care and treatment for it until the matter is later resolved through the legal process. Seized animals are retained under the authority of the court. Some seized animals, including those seized pursuant to a search warrant, can be released following an established postseizure hearing. However, for animals not seized pursuant a search warrant or as otherwise specified, seized animals remain on a court hold until the criminal case is resolved.

Seized animals on a court hold could be fostered or sent to rescues. However, because the animals are evidence and chain of custody laws regarding animals are unclear, shelters are reticent to place animals in foster homes where the animal could potentially escape, jeopardizing the criminal case. Therefore, these animals are often held for months or even years, waiting for the case to resolve.

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

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (co-source)
Social Compassion in Legislation (co-source)
Angel's Furry Friends Rescue
Animal Rescue Mission
Animal Rescuers for Change
Animal Wellness Action
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
City of Los Angeles
City of Seal Beach
Compassionate Bay
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Eartheart
Feline Lucky Adventures
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund
Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation
Lockwood Animal Rescue Center
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals
NY 4 Whales
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Plant-Based Advocates
Project Minnie
Rabbit Savior
Real Good Rescue
Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Canine Condition
The Pet Loss Support Group
The Spayce Project
Underdog Heroes, INC.
Women United for Animal Welfare

Multiple Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

Initiate Justice

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Natalia DaSilva Telles / PUB. S. /

8/17/26 10:03:13

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2344 (Haney) - Animal abuse: forfeiture

Bill Summary:

AB 2344 would establish procedures authorizing a court, in a criminal case, alleging animal cruelty offenses, to order forfeiture of an animal before final disposition of the case. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state mandated local program.

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

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Author Amendments:

Specify that the seizing agency or prosecution shall provide the animal shelter in possession of the animal with any information necessary to comply, as specified.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2344 (Haney) - Animal abuse: forfeiture

Bill Summary:

AB 2344 would establish procedures authorizing a court, in a criminal case, alleging animal cruelty offenses, to order forfeiture of an animal before final disposition of the case. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state mandated local program.

Fiscal Impact:

Minor to moderate workload costs to district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Minor to moderate cost pressures on the courts to adjudicate new cases. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant cost savings to the courts as a result of a more efficient animal disposition process and likely significant savings to animal control agencies from reduced sheltering costs. Whether animal control agency savings may partially or fully offset district attorney mandate claims would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Background:

A seized animal may wind up being held at a shelter from various paths. If an animal is in immediate danger, a responding officer is required by law to seize them and provide care and treatment for them until the matter is later resolved through the legal process. If the need for immediate seizure is not present, and before criminal proceedings have commenced, an agency must offer a pre-seizure hearing to the owner of the animal where the owner can present evidence as to why the animal should not be seized. If the owner does not participate, the hearing officer may order that the animal be seized for its own protection. Rarely are seized animals returned if the owner is unable to pay for release.

Animals may be seized under a search warrant. Those animals are retained under the authority of the court. Seized animals on a court hold could be fostered or sent to rescues. However, because the animals are evidence and chain of custody laws regarding animals are unclear, shelters are reticent to place animals in foster homes where the animal could potentially escape, jeopardizing the criminal case. Therefore, these animals are often held for months or even years as the case is resolved.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require the following:

In a criminal case alleging animal cruelty, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court.

Require the prosecuting attorney to file the petition for forfeiture in the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the crimes.

Require the prosecuting attorney to make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal control agency.

Require the court to enter a response of denial on behalf of the defendant if the defendant fails to file a claim of interest in the animal or appear at the hearing.

At the forfeiture hearing the animal control agency shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is unable to care for the animal.

This bill states that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and thereafter shall be transferred to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.

This bill provides that if a defendant charged animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their possession to a public entity for adoption or provide proof to the court that the person no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals.

Staff Comments: Authorities in Los Angeles County seized more than 300 animals in one operation. Those animals must then be held and cared for. According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, in Los Angeles County, it costs $105.80 a day to shelter a dog or cat. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, the average length of stay for an animal whose case dispositioned without a specified failure to appear was 94 days, which equates to approximately $10,000 per animal. For the animals being held that have not dispositioned, the average length of stay is 281 days, which is approximately $30,000 per animal.

Between approximately June 2024 and June 2026, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed 303 animal abuse cases.

Proposed Author Amendments:

The author has a suspense file amendment, as follows: On page 3, line 16, after the period insert: The seizing agency or prosecution shall provide the animal shelter in possession of the animal with any information necessary to comply with this section.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 2344 Hearing Date: June 23, 2026

Subject: Animal abuse: forfeiture

HISTORY

Source: Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; Social Compassion in Legislation

Prior Legislation: AB 631 (Lee), held in Senate Appropriations, 2025

AB 1482 (Castillo), held in Senate Appropriations, 2025

AB 2425 (Essayli), held in Senate Bus. & Prof., 2024

SB 921 (Roth), held in Senate Appropriations, 2024

SB 922 (Roth), held in Senate Public Safety, 2024

AB 829 (Waldron), Ch. 546, Stats. of 2023

AB 554 (Gabriel), moved to Inactive File, 2023

Support: Angel’s Furry Friends Rescue; Animal Rescue Mission; Animal Rescuers for Change; Animal Wellness Action; Berkeley Animal Rights Center; Better Together Forever; Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption; Compassionate Bay; Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue; Eartheart; Feline Lucky Adventures;
Giantmecha Syndicate; Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative; Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund; Jaimie Brianna’s Legacy Fund; Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation; Lockwood Animal Rescue Center; Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation; Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals; NY 4 Whale; Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue; Plant-based Advocates; Project Minnie; Rabbit Savior; Real Good Rescue; Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue; Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation; Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School; The Canine Condition; The Pet Loss Support Group; The Spayce Project; Underdog Heroes; Women United for Animal Welfare; Over 950 individuals

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to establish procedures authorizing a court, in a criminal case alleging specified animal cruelty offenses, to order forfeiture of a seized or impounded animal before final disposition of the criminal case, 30 days after the defendant fails to appear in court, and authorize the prosecution, where a defendant charged with specified animal cruelty offenses is granted diversion, to request a court order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals.

Existing law provides that a person who has sexual contact with an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 286.5, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that a person who, without the consent of the owner willfully administers poison to another person’s animal, as specified, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 596.)

Existing law provides that a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate misdemeanor-felony, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (a).)

Existing law punishes a person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills an animal, or causes or procures an 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, as specified, with an alternate felony/misdemeanor, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that whoever carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597a.)

Existing law provides that, for amusement or gain, owns, possesses, keeps, trains or causes a bull, bear, cock, or other animal, as specified, to fight with another animal or creature or human, is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 597b; Pen. Code, § 597j.)

Existing law provides that any person who ties, attaches, or fastens any live animal to any machine or device propelled by any power for the purpose of causing that animal to be pursued by a dog or dogs is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597h.)

Existing law provides that every person who willfully abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597s.)

Existing law provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that any person who does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, or two or three years, or by a fine not to exceed $50,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment:

• Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog.
• For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
• Permits any defined prohibited conduct to be done on any premises under his or her charge or control, or aids or abets that act. (Pen. Code, § 597.5, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires, upon the conviction of a person charged with a defined animal cruelty violation, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency be adjudged by the court to be forfeited. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (g)(1).)

Existing law states that an authorized officer, as specified, who seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, before the commencement of any criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)

Existing law establishes procedures for postseizure hearings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(1)-(4).)

Existing law prohibits any person convicted of defined animal cruelty crimes from owning, possessing, or caring for an animal for five or ten years. Existing law states that violators are guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000. (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a)-(b).)

Existing law provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)

Existing law states that the prosecuting agency in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any defined crimes may, in conjunction with the criminal proceeding, file a petition for forfeiture, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law establishes procedures for forfeiture proceedings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 598.1, subd. (c).)

This bill provides that in a criminal case alleging violations of defined animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined.

This bill requires the prosecuting attorney to file the petition for forfeiture with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the defined crimes.

This bill requires the prosecuting attorney to make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for at least three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal shelter in possession of the animal.

This bill requires the forfeiture proceeding to be set for hearing in the superior court in which the underlying criminal offense will be tried.

This bill requires the forfeiture hearing to be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.

This bill requires the court to enter a response of denial on behalf of the defendant if the defendant fails to file a claim of interest in the animal or appear at the hearing.

This bill provides that at the forfeiture hearing the animal control agency shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not able to properly care for the animal.

This bill authorizes the court, at the forfeiture hearing, to take judicial notice of any prior testimony that occurred in a prior proceeding.

This bill states that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and thereafter shall be transferred to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.

This bill provides that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Animals rescued from abuse should not be stuck in cages for months or even years just because a court case is still dragging on. But that is exactly what happens now. While cases stay open, these animals are often left in shelters or animal control facilities far longer than necessary, taking up limited space and resources that other animals also need. The longer they are forced to wait, the greater the risk of stress, sickness, declining health, and lasting behavioral trauma.

AB 2344 offers a simple fix. It allows shelters to ask the court for permission to place abused animals with the right agency or into a safe adoptive home before the case is over. That means vulnerable animals can get out of overcrowded shelters and into stable, loving homes sooner. By cutting down these unnecessary delays, AB 2344 protects animal welfare, eases pressure on shelters, and helps make sure rescued animals get the care and second chance they deserve.

1. Court-Held Animals

There are many ways that a seized animal may end up being held in the shelter.^[1] Firstly, if an animal is in immediate danger, a responding officer is required by law to seize them and provide care and treatment for them until the matter is later resolved through the legal process. (Pen. Code, § 597.1.) If the need for immediate seizure is not present, and before criminal proceedings have commenced, an agency must offer a pre-seizure hearing to the owner of the animal where the owner can present evidence as to why the animal should not be seized. If the owner does not participate, the hearing officer may order that the animal be seized for its own protection.

In reality, seized animals are unlikely to be returned if the owner is unable to pay for its release. According to Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control:

If the hearing officer finds that the animals were properly seized, the costs of care are a lien on the animals and they will not be returned (if authorized to do so) until the owner has satisfied the lien within 14 days. If the animals are not authorized to be released, the owner must continue to pay the costs of their care until the matter is ultimately resolved, usually through criminal proceedings regarding animal cruelty and neglect charges. If the owner fails to pay the lien, the animals are determined to be forfeited to the seizing agency for adoption or other disposition. If the seizure is not upheld, the seizing agency is responsible for the animals’ costs of care.^[2]

Separately, animals may end up in a shelter if they are lost or considered vicious. Stray or lost animals are held for a certain amount of time, with public notice or with notice to the known owner. (Food & Ag. Code, § 31107.) If an animal is considered vicious, while a animal control officer or law enforcement officer petitions a superior court to have a hearing for the vicious animal, which cities and counties may establish as administrative proceedings, the animal may be held at the shelter. (Food & Ag. Code, § 31621.)

Animals may also be seized under a search warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1524.) Those animals are retained under the authority of the court.^[3] In theory, seized animals on a court hold could be fostered or sent to rescues. However, because the animals are evidence and chain of custody laws regarding animals are unclear, shelters are reticent to place animals in foster homes where the animal could potentially more easily escape, jeopardizing the criminal case. Therefore, these animals are often held for months or even years as the case resolves.^[4]

Animals can often be seized in large numbers, sometimes all at once. Authorities in Los Angeles (LA) reported, in March 2026, seizing more than 300 animals in one operation.^[5] Those animals must then be held and cared for. According to the LA County District Attorney’s office, in LA County it costs $105.80/day to shelter a dog or cat. This amount totals $2,962.40 per month and $35,548.80 per year. According to the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control, the average length of stay for an animal whose case dispositioned without a specified failure to appear was 94 days, which equates to approximately $10,000 per animal. For the animals being held that have not dispositioned, the average length of stay is 281 days, which is roughly $30,000 per animal. Government shelters, already overrun in both large urban counties and smaller rural communities, must grapple with this unpredictable but ever increase influx of animals.^[6]

1. Animal Welfare

Confined animal face reduced risks associated with long term stays in a kennel, like “kennel syndrome.” Kennel syndrome is a term used to describe the severe stress and behavioral changes a dog can experience from prolonged confinement in a kennel, often seen in animal shelters.^[7] Kennel syndrome produces behaviors that a dog adapts in survival mode.^[8] This means “dominant or aggressive dogs can turn sweet and submissive in order to get the food or shelter they need to survive, as well as a submissive dog may turn dominant in order to gain respect or shelter.” Other behavioral changes indicating the dog is experiencing severe stress are common, too.^[9] Animals with behavioral issues are often harder to adopt out.

Animal shelters are also at increased risk of spreading infectious disease when they are overcrowded.^[10]

1. Similar Legislation

In Hawaii, shelters or humane societies that house animals seized from animal cruelty cases are allowed to petition the court for early forfeiture of the animal before the case concludes.^[11] The forfeiture hearing takes place within 14 days after the petition is filed.

In Oregon, the county animal agency that the abused animal is held at, or the district attorney, is allowed to file a petition to the court requesting the forfeiture of the abused animal to the county or animal care agency prior to the final outcome of the criminal action charging a violation of animal abuse in the second degree, sexual assault of an animal, abandonment of the animal, involvement in animal fighting, dogfighting, or cockfighting. ^[12] Upon 14 days after filing the petition, the hearing shall be conducted.

In Tennessee, certain local shelters have reached agreements with their District Attorney’s Offices to place held animals in foster homes.^[13]

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill provides that in a criminal case alleging violations of defined animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before the criminal case resolves, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined. This bill requires the forfeiture hearing to be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable. The court is required to enter a response of denial on behalf of the defendant if the defendant fails to file a claim of interest in the animal or appear at the hearing.

When the defendant willfully fails to appear, an argument could be made that they have constructively abandoned the animal. However, the Committee may wish to consider making more explicit in this bill how a defendant can pause these proceedings by presenting a good cause excuse for their failure to appear.

Should the defendant be unable to be given notice of this proceeding, this bill would establish specific procedures authorizing forfeiture, including providing notice on an internet website. The Committee may choose to consider providing guidance on what information should be included in the notice, so that affected defendants are not identifiable.

Because an offense listed in this bill makes it a misdemeanor for any owner of animals to permit the animal to be in any building or public space without proper care and attention, this bill may unduly impact unhoused or indigent individuals who have nowhere to keep their animals to protect them from harsh elements. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (a)(1).) The Committee may wish to consider if this offense should be removed from the bill. Practically, however, because seized animals require payment to retrieve, and because there is currently no mandated ability-to-pay process for retrieving seized animals, this bill may have a negligible effect on this issue.^[14] Furthermore, the majority of court held animals in California are from neglect cases, so removing this offense could reduce the intended fiscal efficacy of this bill.

The Committee may wish to consider clarifying the evidentiary chain of custody issues that present with fostering animals so that this bill may meet its stated goal of removing as many animals as possible from crowded shelter spaces.

This bill provides that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their possession to a designated public entity for adoption or other lawful disposition or provide proof to the court that the person no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals. This could lead to incarceration, as violation of a court order may be punished as criminal contempt. (Pen. Code, § 166.) Further, should, for example, a defendant be living in group living, it may be difficult for them to control whether or not they reside with an animal, as service animals of other residents would not be exempted from this provision, as written.

1. Argument in Support

According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, one of the bill’s co-sponsors:

There are animals (primarily dogs and cats) that are in the possession of animal control agencies because a defendant is charged with an animal cruelty or neglect case that are unnecessarily languishing in shelters because the defendant has willfully failed to appear (FTA) or has had criminal proceedings suspended pursuant to Penal Code Section 1368 (Mental Health Diversion).

When an animal is held longer than necessary by an animal control agency it is both bad public policy and bad fiscal policy.

In Los Angeles County it costs $105.80/day to shelter a dog or cat. This comes out to $740.60/week; $2,962.40/month; $35,548.80/year. When a defendant fails to appear in court this results in a significant burden on the public agency/non-profit that operates the shelter. In the case of public agencies this burden is ultimately borne by the taxpayer. This is especially troublesome when all levels of government in California are dealing with massive budget deficits.

According to the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control the average length of stay for an animal whose case resolved without a FTA/ 1368 was 94 days which equates to a cost of approximately $10,000 per animal. For the animals being held in which the defendant FTA, the average length of stay was 281 days which equates to approximately $30,000 per animal (and this number increases daily).

In addition to the unnecessary burden on shelter budgets, the unnecessary housing of animals in cruelty/neglect cases contributes to the overcrowding of our animal shelters. Shelters strive to operate at 75-80% capacity. Today our Los Angeles County shelters are operating well over 100% capacity. This overcapacity results in some animals being euthanized that could have been adopted and increases the risk of disease spread in overcrowded shelters.

Just like inmates who suffer mental breakdowns from being incarcerated, animals suffer mental breakdowns from being sheltered. These animals go "kennel crazy" and engage in self destructive behavior and repetitive behaviors that make it much more likely that they will have to be euthanized.

"Kennel crazy" is a term used to describe the severe stress and behavioral changes an animal can experience from prolonged confinement in a kennel, often seen in animal shelters. Symptoms include excessive barking, pacing, destructive behavior, anxiety, aggression, and compulsive actions like spinning or self-harm. The primary "cure" is to get the animal out of the stressful kennel environment and into a home with proper exercise and enrichment.

AB 2344 would help eliminate these problems by authorizing an animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded in animal cruelty/neglect cases to petition the court to issue an order before the final case disposition to forfeit the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency.

AB 2344 also provides that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.

AB 2344 will help save the lives of innocent animals that were victims of cruelty and neglect and at the same time it will result in significant cost savings to both public and non-profit animal shelters.

-- END --

1. Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control (2025). How Animal Seizures Work Under the Law https://animalcare.lacounty.gov/news/how-animal-seizures-work-under-the-law/ ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. ASPCA (2026) Position Statement on Protection of Animal Cruelty Victims https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-protection-animal-cruelty-victims ↑

5. NBC Los Angeles (March 2026) Shelter seeks adopters after LA County removes more than 300 animals https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/shelters-seek-adopters-after-la-county-removes-more-than-300-animals/3864897/ ↑

6. Valley Humane (July 2025) Undervalued and Underfunded: The Quiet Crisis Facing Animal Shelters https://valleyhumane.org/blog/undervalued-and-underfunded-the-quiet-crisis-facing-animal-shelters/ ↑

7. Bound Angels (2009). Kennel Syndrome https://boundangels.org/wp-content/uploads/kennel_syndrome.pdf ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Ibid. ↑

10. ASPCA (2026) Infection Control in the Shelter https://www.aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/shelterinfectioncontrol.pdf; Best Friends Network Partners (2026) Infections Disease Outbreak Response Playbook https://bestfriends.org/network/resources-tools/infectious-disease-outbreak-response-playbook ↑

11. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1109.2. ↑

12. Oregon Statutes 167.347. ↑

13. Human Animal Support Services (Jan. 2024). Advocating for Court Case Animals https://www.humananimalsupportservices.org/blog/data-insight-advocating-for-court-case-animals/ ↑

14. Shelter directors sometimes waive fees for indigent individuals but, under current law, fee waiver remains discretionary. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2344

Author:(Haney)

As Amended Ver:April 23, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Provides procedures that authorize courts to require forfeiture of an animal under specified circumstances.

Major Provisions

1. States that in a criminal case alleging violations of defined animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined.
2. Provides that the prosecuting attorney shall file the petition for forfeiture with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the defined crimes.
3. Establishes that the prosecuting attorney shall make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for at least three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal shelter in possession of the animal.
4. Requires the forfeiture proceeding to be set for hearing in the superior court in which the underlying criminal offense will be tried.
5. States that the forfeiture hearing shall be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
6. Establishes that if the defendant fails to file a claim of interest in the animal or appear at the hearing, the court shall enter a response of denial on behalf of the defendant.
7. Provides that at the forfeiture hearing the animal control agency shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not able to properly care for the animal. The court may take judicial notice of any prior testimony that occurred in a prior proceeding.
8. States that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and thereafter shall be transferred to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
9. States that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

According to the author, "Animals rescued from abuse should not be stuck in cages for months or even years just because a court case is still dragging on. But that is exactly what happens now. While cases stay open, these animals are often left in shelters or animal control facilities far longer than necessary, taking up limited space and resources that other animals also need. The longer they are forced to wait, the greater the risk of stress, sickness, declining health, and lasting behavioral trauma.

"AB 2344 offers a simple fix. It allows shelters to ask the court for permission to place abused animals with the right agency or into a safe adoptive home before the case is over. That means vulnerable animals can get out of overcrowded shelters and into stable, loving homes sooner. By cutting down these unnecessary delays, AB 2344 protects animal welfare, eases pressure on shelters, and helps make sure rescued animals get the care and second chance they deserve."

Arguments in Support

According to Angel's Furry Friends Rescue, "We write on behalf of the undersigned organizations to thank you for authoring AB 2344. We strongly support this important legislation, which would allow prosecuting attorneys to file a petition requesting court-ordered forfeiture of animal seized in animal abuse cases if the accused fails to appear in court. By doing so, this bill will allow these animals to be adopted before the disposition of the case, which can last months or even years.

"Animals rescued from abuse should not be forced to spend months or even years in shelter kennels simply because a court case is still pending, yet that is what often happens today. While cases drag on, these animals remain in shelters or animal control facilities far longer than necessary, taking up limited space and resources and face greater risks of stress, illness, declining health, and lasting behavioral trauma.

"In Los Angeles County, it costs about $105 a day to house just one animal. As more animals from cruelty cases remain in shelters for long periods, those costs continue to grow. Shelters are supposed to operate at about 75 to 80 percent capacity, but Los Angeles County shelters are currently operating at more than 100 percent capacity. That overcrowding means fewer resources and less care for every animal. In the worst cases, shelters may have to consider euthanasia simply to make room.

"Long shelter stays also harm the animals themselves. Research has found that animals kept in shelters for long periods are much more likely to develop severe stress and behavior problems, making them harder to adopt. Some dogs become "kennel crazy" after being confined for too long, leading to anxiety, aggression, and even self-destructive behavior.

"AB 2344 helps to alleviate this problem by giving prosecutors the option to petition the court to mandate forfeiture of these animals without waiting for the often lengthy and uncertain duration of a case. Animals involved in previous animal cruelty cases often come from a history of abuse and mistreatment. This bill will put an end to the delay in care, ensuring that vulnerable animals are able to be placed in safe, stable homes in a timely manner.

"For these reasons, we again thank you for authoring this important policy and respectfully urges your colleagues in the legislature to vote 'AYE' on AB 2344."

Arguments in Opposition

No longer applicable.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Workload costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the trial courts to hear pre-disposition forfeiture petitions within 14 days of filing. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.
2. Workload costs (local funds) to county district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. County district attorney costs are not state-mandated local program costs absent a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Workload costs (local funds) to local animal control agencies to request forfeiture petitions, publish notices on agency websites where service by registered mail or personal delivery is unsuccessful, attend hearings, and arrange adoption or other disposition of forfeited animals.
4. Potential offsetting savings to local animal control agencies from reduced shelter-holding costs for animals seized in connection with criminal cases where the defendant has failed to appear. The Public Safety analysis cites Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control figures indicating shelter costs of approximately $105.80 per animal per day, and reports that the average length of stay for an animal whose case has not been dispositioned is 281 days, equating to approximately $30,000 per animal. Magnitude depends on how often the forfeiture authority is invoked and varies by county.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 23, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002867

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2344

Author:(Haney) – As Amended Ver:April 23, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes procedures authorizing a court, in a criminal case alleging specified animal cruelty offenses, to order forfeiture of a seized or impounded animal before final disposition of the criminal case, 30 days after the defendant fails to appear in court. The bill also authorizes the prosecution, where a defendant charged with specified animal cruelty offenses is granted diversion, to request a court order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes the animal control agency in possession of a seized or impounded animal to request that the prosecuting attorney file a forfeiture petition if the defendant has failed to appear.
2. Requires the forfeiture hearing to be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
3. Provides that the animal control agency has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not able to properly care for the animal.
4. Requires the court, if the petitioner meets its burden, to order immediate forfeiture and transfer of the animal to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for adoption or other disposition.
5. Authorizes the prosecution, where a defendant is granted diversion, to request a court order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Workload costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the trial courts to hear pre-disposition forfeiture petitions within 14 days of filing. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.
2. Workload costs (local funds) to county district attorneys to file forfeiture petitions and serve process on defendants. County district attorney costs are not state-mandated local program costs absent a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Workload costs (local funds) to local animal control agencies to request forfeiture petitions, publish notices on agency websites where service by registered mail or personal delivery is unsuccessful, attend hearings, and arrange adoption or other disposition of forfeited animals.
4. Potential offsetting savings to local animal control agencies from reduced shelter-holding costs for animals seized in connection with criminal cases where the defendant has failed to appear. The Public Safety analysis cites Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control figures indicating shelter costs of approximately $105.80 per animal per day, and reports that the average length of stay for an animal whose case has not been dispositioned is 281 days, equating to approximately $30,000 per animal. Magnitude depends on how often the forfeiture authority is invoked and varies by county.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Animals rescued from abuse should not be stuck in cages for months or even years just because a court case is still dragging on… AB 2344 offers a simple fix. It allows shelters to ask the court for permission to place abused animals with the right agency or into a safe adoptive home before the case is over. That means vulnerable animals can get out of overcrowded shelters and into stable, loving homes sooner.

1. Background. Existing law authorizes seizure and impoundment of animals based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or others, and establishes post-seizure hearing procedures. Existing law requires forfeiture of seized animals upon conviction for specified animal cruelty offenses. This bill establishes a new pre-disposition forfeiture pathway triggered by the defendant’s failure to appear in court, applicable to specified animal cruelty offenses.

The Public Safety Committee analysis cites figures from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office and the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control indicating that shelter costs are $105.80 per animal per day, that the average length of stay for an animal whose case has been dispositioned without a specified failure to appear is 94 days (approximately $10,000 per animal), and that the average length of stay for animals whose cases have not been dispositioned is 281 days (approximately $30,000 per animal). The analysis also discusses kennel syndrome — behavioral changes resulting from prolonged shelter confinement — as a non-fiscal consideration favoring earlier disposition.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Provides procedures that authorize courts to require forfeiture of an animal under specified circumstances. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that in a criminal case alleging violations of defined animal cruelty laws, the animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency may request that the prosecuting attorney file a petition requesting that, before final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency thirty days after a defendant fails to appear in court, as defined.
2. Provides that the prosecuting attorney shall file the petition for forfeiture with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any of the defined crimes.
3. Establishes that the prosecuting attorney shall make service of process on the defendant. If the notice cannot be served by registered mail or personal delivery, the notices shall be published for at least three consecutive weeks on the website of the animal shelter in possession of the animal.
4. Requires the forfeiture proceeding to be set for hearing in the superior court in which the underlying criminal offense will be tried.
5. States that the forfeiture hearing shall be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
6. Establishes that if the defendant fails to file a claim of interest in the animal or appear at the hearing, the court shall enter a response of denial on behalf of the defendant.
7. Provides that at the forfeiture hearing the animal control agency shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not able to properly care for the animal. The court may take judicial notice of any prior testimony that occurred in a prior proceeding.
8. States that if the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. If the court grants the petition the animal shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and thereafter shall be transferred to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
9. States that if a defendant charged with a violation of defined animal cruelty laws is granted diversion, the prosecution may request an order from the court that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the defendant to immediately deliver all animals in their 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.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate felony/misdemeanor, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (a).)
2. Punishes a person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills an animal, or causes or procures an 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, as specified, with an alternate felony/misdemeanor, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b).)
3. Requires, upon the conviction of a person charged with a defined animal cruelty violation, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency be adjudged by the court to be forfeited. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (g)(1).)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (a)(1).)
5. States that an officer authorized under this section who seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, before the commencement of any criminal proceedings, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f).)
6. Establishes procedures for postseizure hearings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (f)(1)-(4).)
7. Establishes that it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do either of the following:
   1. Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.
   2. Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. (Pen. Code, § 597.4, subd. (a).)
8. Provides that any person who does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, or two or three years, or by a fine not to exceed $50,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment:
   1. Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog.
   2. For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
   3. Permits any defined prohibited conduct to be done on any premises under his or her charge or control, or aids or abets that act. (Pen. Code, § 597.5, subd. (a).)
9. Prohibits any person convicted of defined animal cruelty crimes from owning, possessing, or caring for an animal for five or ten years. Violators are guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000. (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a)-(b).)
10. States that whoever carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597a.)
11. Provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)
12. States that the prosecuting agency in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant has been charged with the commission of any defined crimes may, in conjunction with the criminal proceeding, file a petition for forfeiture, as provided. (Pen. Code, § subd. (a)(1).)
13. Establishes procedures for forfeiture proceedings, as defined. (Pen. Code, § subd. (c).)
14. States that any person who willfully and maliciously and with no legal justification strikes, beats, kicks, cuts, stabs, shoots with a firearm, administers any poison or other harmful or stupefying substance to, or throws, hurls, or projects at, or places any rock, object, or other substance which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing injury and likely to produce injury, on or in the path of, a horse being used by, or a dog under the supervision of, a peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties, is guilty of a public offense. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: None submitted.
2. Effect of the Bill: AB 2344, as amended, would authorize an animal control agency in possession of an animal seized or impounded in animal cruelty or neglect cases to petition the court to issue an order before the final case disposition to forfeit the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency in defined situations. This bill would establish specific procedures authorizing forfeiture in these cases.

For example, the forfeiture hearing shall be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable, and would be held in the same superior court where the underlying offense is tried. The petitioner would have the burden of establishing that, even in the event of an acquittal of the criminal charges, the owner would not be legally permitted to retain the animal in question. If the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. While there does not appear to be a constitutional issue here, there may be some concern over whether this provision is necessary as it may create complications for incompetent defendants. AB 2339 would additionally establish that should the court grant the forfeiture petition, the animal shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and thereafter shall be transferred to the animal control agency or appropriate entity for proper adoption or other disposition.

There is precedent for these laws. Forfeiture and seizure hearings, under specific circumstances, already exist in the Penal Code. (See Pen. Codes, §§ 597.1-598.1.) A defendant who willfully fails to appear after being arrested for animal cruelty or neglect is made aware the animal has been taken to a shelter. (Ibid.) Additionally, when the defendant willfully fails to appear an argument could be made that this is a constructive abandonment.

This bill could help get animals out of shelters sooner and into foster situations where those animals should face reduced risks associated with long term confinement in a kennel, like “kennel syndrome.” Kennel syndrome is a term used to describe the severe stress and behavioral changes a dog can experience from prolonged confinement in a kennel, often seen in animal shelters.^[1] Kennel syndrome produces behaviors that a dog adapts in survival mode.^[2] This means “dominant or aggressive dogs can turn sweet and submissive in order to get the food or shelter they need to survive, as well as a submissive dog may turn dominant in order to gain respect or shelter.” Other behavioral changes indicating the dog is experiencing severe stress are common, too.^[3]

According to the Los Angeles (LA) County District Attorney’s office, in LA County it costs $105.80/day to shelter a dog or cat. This amount totals $2,962.40 per month and $35,548.80 per year. According to the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control, the average length of stay for an animal whose case dispositioned without a specified failure to appear was 94 days, which equates to approximately $10,000 per animal. For the animals being held that have not dispositioned, the average length of stay is 281 days, which is roughly $30,000 per animal. This number is constantly increasing, as well.

1. Argument in Support: No longer applicable.
2. Argument in Opposition: No longer applicable.
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 631 (Lee), of the 2025-26 Legislative Session, would have required animal shelters, as defined, to collect and record the number of animals taken in, the source of intake, and the outcomes for all animals, as specified. AB 631 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   2. AB 1482 (Castillo), of the 2025-26 Legislative Session, would have required an animal shelter, as defined, to provide in a conspicuous location on its internet website or a third-party internet website a list of all animals that are available for adoption or that are being held pursuant to specified laws, except as provided. AB 1482 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   3. AB 829 (Waldron), Chapter 546, Statutes of 2023, deleted the requirement that a defendant granted probation complete counseling and, instead, requires the court to order a defendant convicted of specified offenses against animals and granted probation to successfully complete counseling designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders.
   4. AB 554 (Gabriel), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have authorized a corporation, or humane officer thereof, proffering a complaint under existing law to bring it as a civil action to obtain specific or preventive injunctive relief to enforce laws relating to or affecting animal. AB 554 died on the Assembly Inactive File.
   5. AB 2425 (Essayli), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have required an animal shelter, as defined, to provide in a conspicuous location on its internet website or a third-party internet website a list of all animals that are available for adoption or that are being held pursuant to specified laws, except as provided. AB 1482 was held in the Assembly Business & Professions Committee.
   6. SB 921 (Roth), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have made it a crime to otherwise abuse or subject a living animal to needless suffering. SB 921 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   7. SB 922 (Roth), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have increase fines for specified animal cruelty crimes to $500 for a first offense and $2,000 for a subsequent offense or if the animal suffers great bodily injury. SB 922 was held in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   8. SB 1277 (Florez), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have authorized DOJ to create a registry for people convicted of specified animal abuse offenses. SB 1277 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

No longer applicable.

Opposition

No longer applicable.

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Cabral, R. Kennel Syndrome (2009) Bound Angels <https://boundangels.org/wp-content/uploads/kennel_syndrome.pdf> [as of Apr. 16, 2026]. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Creates an animal abuse registry that would require individuals convicted of defined crimes to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and makes failure to register, as specified, punishable as a misdemeanor. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes that any person who is convicted in any court in this state of animal abuse shall be required to register, in accordance with the provisions of this section, for a period of 10 years, commencing from the date of conviction.
2. States that every person, as defined, while residing or located in this state or within 10 days of coming to this state, shall:
   1. Register with the chief of police of the city where the person is residing, or if the person has no residence, where the person is located.
   2. Register with the sheriff of the county where the person is residing, or if the person has no residence, where the person is located in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department.
   3. Additionally, register with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges where the person is residing, or if the person has no residence, where the person is located upon the campus or any of its facilities.
3. Requires any person who must register, as specified, who is released from confinement because of the commission of animal abuse, to be informed of their duty to register by the official in charge of the place of confinement. All forms shall be transmitted in time so as to be received by the local law enforcement agency and prosecuting agency 30 days prior to the discharge, parole, or release of the person.
4. Provides that the registration shall consist of a statement in writing signed by the person with all of the following information:
   • 1. The legal name and any other names or aliases that the person is using or has used.
     2. Date of birth.
     3. The current address or location of the person.
     4. Name and address of employer.
     5. Animal abuse offense for which the person was convicted.
     6. The date and place of the animal abuse offense conviction of the person.
     7. Any other information, as may be required by DOJ.
   1. The complete set of fingerprints and a photograph of the person.
   2. A description of any tattoos, scars, or other distinguishing features on the person’s body that would assist in identifying the person.
   3. Within three days after registration, the registering law enforcement agency shall electronically forward the statement, fingerprints, and photograph to DOJ.
5. Establishes that if any person required to register changes their residence address, they shall inform, in writing within 10 days, the law enforcement agency with whom they last registered of their new address. The law enforcement agency shall, within three days after receipt of the information, electronically forward it to DOJ. DOJ shall forward appropriate registration data to the law enforcement agency having local jurisdiction of the new place of residence.
6. States that any person required to register who violates any of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who has been convicted of animal abuse who is required to register who willfully violates any of the provisions thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to serve a term of not less than 90 days nor more than one year in a county jail. In no event does the court have the power to absolve a person who willfully violates this law from the obligation of spending at least 90 days of confinement in a county jail and of completing probation of at least one year.
7. Provides that the information required for registration shall be open to inspection by the public through the use of an internet website maintained by DOJ, or by telephone or upon written request where practicable. DOJ shall update the internet website on an ongoing basis. The name or address of the person’s employer and the listed person’s criminal history other than the specific crimes for which the person is required to register shall not be included on the internet website. The internet website shall be translated into languages other than English as determined by DOJ.
8. States that in any case in which a person who would be required to register is to be temporarily sent outside the institution where they are confined on any assignment within a city or county, the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the place or places where that assignment shall occur shall be notified within a reasonable time prior to removal from the institution.
9. Specifies that nothing shall be construed to conflict with requirements concerning termination of probation and release from penalties and disabilities of probation.
10. States that a person required to register may initiate a rehabilitation proceeding under and, upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation, shall be relieved of any further duty to register under this section.
11. Specifies that any state facility that releases from incarceration a person who was incarcerated because of a crime for which they are required to register shall, within 30 days of release, provide the year of release for their most recent offense requiring registration to DOJ.
12. Provides that on or before January 1, 2028, DOJ shall make available to the public, via an internet website, as to any registered person, the following information:
    1. The year of conviction of their most recent offense requiring registration.
    2. The year they were released from incarceration for that offense.
    3. Whether they were subsequently incarcerated for any other felony, if that fact is reported to DOJ. If DOJ has no information about a subsequent incarceration for any felony, that fact shall be noted on the internet website.
13. States that on or before January 1, 2028, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission of any of specified offenses, DOJ shall make available to the public via the internet website, the information included in the person’s registration, and any other information that DOJ deems relevant, but not the information excluded.
14. Provides that a law enforcement entity may make available by way of an internet website specified information if it determines that the public disclosure of the information about a specific offender is necessary to ensure the public safety.
15. Specifies that, notwithstanding specified laws, disclosure of information is not a waiver of exemptions and does not affect other statutory restrictions on disclosure in other situations.
16. Punishes any person who uses information disclosed to commit a crime, in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed, a fine of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
17. Punishes any person who is required to register who enters an internet website established under this law by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
18. Establishes that a person is authorized to use information disclosed under this law only to protect an animal at risk.
19. Provides that use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
    1. Health insurance.
    2. Insurance.
    3. Loans.
    4. Credit.
    5. Employment.
    6. Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
    7. Housing or accommodations.
    8. Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.
20. States that defined prohibitions on registry information disclosure shall not affect authorized access to, or use of, information pursuant to other specified areas of law.
21. States that the use of registry information disclosed for purposes other than those provided shall make the user liable for the specified damages and fees.
22. Specifies that where there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of misuse of the information available via an internet website established under this law, the Attorney General (AG), any district attorney, or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the misuse is authorized to bring a civil action in the appropriate court requesting specified remedies.
23. States that the public notification provisions are applicable to every person described who is convicted on or after January 1, 2027.
24. Immunizes designated law enforcement entities and its employees from liability for good faith conduct.
25. Removes from the established internet website any person who becomes relieved of the duty to register.
26. States that the AG, in collaboration with local law enforcement and others knowledgeable about animal abuse offenders, shall develop strategies to assist members of the public in understanding and using publicly available information about registered animal abuse offenders to further public safety.
27. States that any person convicted of a specified offense shall, in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed, be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) for each felony conviction.
28. Establishes that fines collected shall be deposited in the Animal Protection Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, and shall be expended for the following purposes:
    1. By DOJ for creating, administering, and updating the internet website.
    2. By local governments for spay and neuter programs.
29. Limits to no more than three percent of the revenue deposited in the fund for use in the reimbursement of costs of administration, collection, enforcement, and auditing requirements of this law.
30. Defines “animal abuse” as a felony conviction of specified laws or a felony conviction for an attempt to commit one of those offenses, or a felony conviction for a comparable offense in another state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that a person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate felony/misdemeanor, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (a).)
2. Punishes a person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills an animal, or causes or procures an 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, as specified, with an alternate felony/misdemeanor, or a fine of up to $20,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, except as provided. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b).)
3. Requires, upon the conviction of a person charged with a defined animal cruelty violation, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency be adjudged by the court to be forfeited. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (g)(1).)
4. Provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597.1, subd. (a)(1).)
5. Establishes that it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do either of the following:
   1. Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.
   2. Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. (Pen. Code, § 597.4, subd. (a).)
6. Provides that any person who does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, or two or three years, or by a fine not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment:
   1. Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog.
   2. For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other.
   3. Permits any defined prohibited conduct to be done on any premises under his or her charge or control, or aids or abets that act. (Pen. Code, § 597.5, subd. (a).)
7. Prohibits any person convicted of defined animal cruelty crimes from owning, possessing, or caring for an animal for five or ten years. Violators are guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (Pen. Code, § 597.9, subd. (a)-(b).)
8. States that whoever carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597a.)
9. Provides that any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 597e.)
10. States that any person who willfully and maliciously and with no legal justification strikes, beats, kicks, cuts, stabs, shoots with a firearm, administers any poison or other harmful or stupefying substance to, or throws, hurls, or projects at, or places any rock, object, or other substance which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing injury and likely to produce injury, on or in the path of, a horse being used by, or a dog under the supervision of, a peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties, is guilty of a public offense. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (a).)
11. Requires a sex offender to register for ten years, twenty years, or for a lifetime, depending on the offense. (Pen. Code, § 290, subds. (c)-(d).)
12. States that the DOJ is required to make information about registered sex offenders available to the public via an Internet Web site, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 290.46.)
13. Provides that DOJ is required to include on this web site a registrant's name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, any other information that DOJ deems relevant unless expressly excluded under the statute. Requires DOJ to include on its Internet Web site either the home address or zip code of residence of persons who are required to register as sex offenders based upon their registration offense (Pen. Code, §§ 290.46, subds. (b)(2)-(d)(2).)
14. Requires people who are sex offender registrants to disclose this status to the licensee of a community care facility before becoming a client of that facility. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1522.01.)
15. Requires each county to develop a procedure using existing systems for electronic data transmission to the DOJ. Law enforcement, court, or other appropriate agency personnel shall enter the data electronically and transmit the data to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). The court or its designee must transmit all data filed, with respect to protective orders, to law enforcement personnel within one business day by one of the following methods:
    1. Transmitting a physical copy of the order to a local law enforcement agency authorized to enter orders into CLETS; or,
    2. With the approval to DOJ, entering the order into CLETS directly. (Fam. Code, § 6380, subd. (a).)
16. Requires all available information to be included, however, the inability to provide all categories of information shall not delay the entry of information available:
    1. Names of the protected persons;
    2. Date of issuance of the order;
    3. Duration or expiration date of the order;
    4. Terms and conditions of the protective order, including stay-away, no-contact, residency exclusion, custody, and visitation provisions of the order;
    5. Department or division number and the address of the court;
    6. Whether or not the order was served upon the respondent; and,
    7. Terms and conditions of any restrictions on the ownership or possession of firearms. (Fam. Code, § 6380, subd. (b)(1)-(8).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Over the last five years, California has recorded hundreds of cruelty-to-animals arrests statewide each year. California has laws against animal cruelty, but once a felony conviction is entered, there is still no simple statewide system to help shelters, rescues, law enforcement, and the public identify known abusers before another animal is placed at risk.

“Animals are completely dependent on us for care and protection, and when that trust is shattered through abuse, we have a moral obligation to act. By giving shelters, rescues, and the public a tool to prevent repeat cruelty, the registry will help protect vulnerable animals and ensure California leads with both compassion and common sense. AB 2344 closes a major accountability gap by creating a statewide animal abuse registry for adults convicted of felony animal cruelty.”

1. Effect of the Bill: AB 2344 creates a mandatory registration system for individuals convicted of certain animal abuse crimes. The bill also establishes a designated fund to support administration of the registration program and other animal welfare programs.

According to the author, “Over the last five years, California has recorded hundreds of cruelty-to-animals arrests statewide each year. Once a felony conviction is entered, however, there is still no simple statewide system to help shelters, rescues, law enforcement, and the public identify known abusers before another animal is placed at risk. That leaves a major gap between punishment and prevention. A convicted abuser can move from one community to another, and there is no clear public tool to help stop repeat harm.”

Efforts to address animal cruelty are laudable. Animal cruelty is offensive to the standards of any reasonable person. It is unclear, however, whether establishing a registry is the best way to close the gap between punishment and prevention identified by the author. Part of the punishment in existing law for specified crimes against animals includes a ban on owning animals in the future. (Pen. Code, § 597.9.) The author presumably hopes to reinforce the effectiveness of this punishment by implementing an animal abuse registry that is available to the public. There is not much data available regarding the use and effectiveness of these registries, so it is not clear whether a registry will produce the desired outcomes.

Furthermore, it is uncertain how establishing a registry would contribute to the prevention of crime, at least of animal abuse crimes. A registry may be forward looking based on past conduct, but it is not difficult to speculate on ways the registry may not be effective. For example, what if a person’s information is incorrectly uploaded into the registry? The person who should be prevented from getting another animal may still be able to get a pet. What about cases where a convicted abuser is able to get pets in their home because their unregistered partners or loved ones are the ones adopting or purchasing the animals? The goals of the registry could be subverted in various ways.

A key element to these registries goes beyond just ensuring prevention of convicted abusers from acquiring another animal and additionally represents a sort of public shaming. While some may be comfortable with publicly shaming convicted animal abusers, there does not appear to be much evidence supporting a connection between public shaming and prevention of recidivating. If an identified goal of establishing this registry is prevention of crime, especially animal crimes, then the registry may not be the most effective means of achieving that goal.

Ensuring shelters, adoption agencies, and individuals or families, who are transferring ownership of a pet to another person, have tools to feel confident those pets will be going to a loving home is a notable public safety consideration. There is data showing a connection between people who abuse animals and people who abuse other people, particularly in relationships.^[1] There is also evidence showing the same people who abuse animals involved in other crimes.^[2] The connection is not always predictive though and the order between animal abuse and other crime can just as likely precede as well as proceed the other.^[3] Importantly, research has found that behavior which is more predictable following animal abuse crimes, like hoarding, can be more effectively addressed by community-based long-term monitoring, rather than by special registration.^[4]

The offenses for which people would have to register under this bill are arguably overbroad, as well. Certainly, creating mechanisms ensuring those who willfully abuse or torture animals do not get the opportunity to have another pet, but the provisions of AB 2344 require registration of those who may unintentionally cause harm to animals as well. Treating willful abusers of animals with the same registration requirement as someone who is unable to get back to their pets in time before some harm comes to the animal may be unfair and inconsistent with how the law generally differentiates punishment for different states of mind.

1. Precedent for Animal Abuse Registries: Tennessee has established an animal abuse registry with a publicly available website.^[5] A growing number of New York counties^[6] have built their own animal abuse registries.^[7] Yet, advocates say a patchwork of local laws isn't enough to keep convicted abusers from simply crossing a county line to obtain another pet.^[8] While some jurisdictions have created animal abuse registries, data is not well developed on the effectiveness of these registries. Additionally, while there appears at one time to have been a national registry for people convicted of animal abuse with a publicly accessible database listing people convicted of abuse by country, state, type of animal, type of abuse and other factors, this website now instead focuses on providing the best care for your pet, information on endangered animals, and general knowledge about both certain domesticated and wild animals.^[9]

A recent position statement taken by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) notably expressed, at best, only lukewarm support for animal abuse registries while also raising significant concerns about registries.^[10] In this statement, ASPCA wrote:

Although we appreciate that animal abuser registry proposals derive from a genuine motivation to take animal cruelty seriously, the ASPCA believes that this approach does little to protect animals or people and can have unintended consequences. Existing strategies, such as well-enforced no-contact orders, mandated psychological assessment and inclusion of pets in orders of protection, provide a response that is more effective in preventing harm to animals and people.^[11]

ASPCA goes on to describe specific concerns associated with registry programs.^[12] These concerns include that 1) Registries are expensive to institute and maintain, 2) Registries have limited reach and are rarely utilized, 3) Registries are limited in scope and do not offer real protections for potential victims of animal cruelty, 4) Registries may actually decrease the prosecution of serious animal cruelty cases, 5) Registries do not remove potential access to pets, 6) Registries can create a vigilante mentality in the public, 7) Registries can put additional burdens on animal sheltering organizations, and 8) Other registries like sex offender have not been shown to reduce recidivism of the registered offense.^[13]

Given the concerns with these registries, it is questionable whether establishment of one in California will achieve the desired public safety objectives.

1. Argument in Support: According to Fix Our Shelters, “AB 2344 establishes a long-overdue framework to address felony animal abuse through the creation of a statewide registration system and public-facing database. As outlined in the bill, individuals convicted of specified felony animal abuse offenses would be required to register with law enforcement for a defined period, with key identifying information maintained and, in part, made accessible to the public. This approach appropriately aligns with existing public safety models used for other serious offenses, recognizing the well-documented correlation between animal abuse and broader patterns of violence.

“From both a public safety and animal welfare perspective, this bill closes a critical gap. Currently, there is no consistent mechanism to track or monitor individuals convicted of serious animal cruelty offenses once they reenter communities. This lack of visibility creates risk, not only for animals, but for the public at large. AB 2344 introduces a structured, enforceable system that enables law enforcement agencies to maintain accountability while providing communities with tools to make informed decisions.

“This legislation is also critically important for animal shelters and rescue organizations, which operate on the front lines of placement. Every day, shelters and rescues adopt animals into homes with limited ability to fully screen adopters beyond available records. Without a centralized accountability mechanism, individuals with documented histories of felony animal abuse can and do re-enter the adoption pipeline undetected. AB 2344 provides a practical safeguard, allowing shelters and rescues to make more informed placement decisions, reduce the risk of re-victimization, and protect both animals and the integrity of adoption programs.

“The public safety rationale for this bill is equally compelling. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has formally recognized animal cruelty as a distinct and trackable offense within its National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), reflecting extensive research demonstrating a strong correlation between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. Studies have consistently shown that individuals who commit acts of animal cruelty are statistically more likely to engage in violent crimes against humans, including domestic violence and other serious offenses. By creating a registry and structured tracking system, AB 2344 supports earlier identification of high-risk individuals and strengthens the broader public safety infrastructure.

“Importantly, the bill balances transparency with safeguards. It limits the scope of publicly available information, prohibits misuse of registry data, and establishes penalties for improper use. These provisions ensure that the registry serves its intended purpose—prevention and protection—without enabling harassment or collateral harm.

“AB 2344 also demonstrates thoughtful policy design through the creation of the Animal Protection Fund, directing penalty revenues toward both administration of the registry and critically needed spay and neuter programs. This reinvestment mechanism not only supports enforcement but also addresses upstream contributors to animal suffering and shelter system strain.

“From our work across jurisdictions, we have consistently observed that accountability mechanisms are essential to improving outcomes for animals and communities. Without them, patterns of abuse persist unchecked. AB 2344 provides a meaningful and enforceable tool to disrupt those patterns.

“For these reasons, Fix Our Shelters respectfully urges your “AYE” vote on AB 2344.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the American Kennel Club, “The American Kennel Club (AKC) writes on behalf of our 470 California dog clubs and thousands of constituent dog owners in California to oppose Assembly Bill 2344 in its current form. AKC is a strong defender of policies that promote responsible pet ownership and protect the health and welfare of dogs. We unequivocally condemn deliberate animal cruelty and support vigorous enforcement of California’s existing animal protection laws. However, as currently constructed, AB 2344 would expose responsible dog owners and ordinary Californians to a severe, decade-long public registry for conduct that does not constitute the intentional, predatory abuse the bill’s sponsors seek to address.

“AB 2344 would mandate ten-year registry enrollment for any adult convicted of felony animal abuse, but its scope includes all of Penal Code Section 597—a statute considerably broader than the intentional, malicious conduct that public animal abuse registries are designed to deter. Subdivision (b) of Section 597 criminalizes a wide range of neglect-based conduct, including failing to provide an animal with proper food, drink, shelter, or protection from the weather, without requiring proof of malicious intent. Critically, Section 597 is a “wobbler” offense: a prosecutor has complete discretion to charge a neglect-based violation as either a misdemeanor or a felony. A felony conviction—even for an isolated, unintentional lapse in care—would trigger AB 2344’s mandatory registration requirement.

“The real-world effects of including honest mistakes will be severe. The AKC strongly believes all dog owners should act in a responsible manner and ensure the health and safety of their pets. However, a dog owner (say, for example, an elderly person) who inadvertently leaves a pet outside during an unexpected heat event, fails to refill a water bowl on one occasion, or whose animal suffers harm from an oversight rather than any intent to cause suffering could face a felony charge under Section 597(b). Under AB 2344, as written, that same individual—who may have no history of cruelty whatsoever—would be placed on a public registry alongside individuals convicted of deliberate torture, dogfighting, or malicious killing. This conflation is both inequitable and contrary to the bill’s stated protective purpose.

“The AKC respectfully urges the Committee, that should you desire to move forward with an animal abuse registry, to amend AB 2344 to limit registry eligibility to convictions under Penal Code Section 597(a)—which expressly requires proof that the defendant “maliciously and intentionally” maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed an animal—and to other provisions involving inherently intentional conduct, such as the dogfighting statute at Section 597.5. This targeted scope would focus registry resources on the high-risk, intentional offenders the legislation envisions, while shielding responsible animal owners from disproportionate consequences for non-malicious conduct. The AKC also recommends that the bill include individualized judicial findings (with consultation of local animal control) of ongoing risk before mandatory registration is imposed and a clear process for early removal upon a showing of rehabilitation in cases of more minor, correctible offenses.

“The AKC appreciates the Committee’s attention to this issue and the genuine motivation behind AB 2344 to protect the welfare of animals. Thank you for reviewing and considering our position on this bill. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss further how we can work together to address your concerns and promote responsible pet ownership in California.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 2701 (J. Gonzales) would require DOJ, upon an appropriation by the Legislature, to create a database for the purpose of storing and sharing information with local agencies and the court, regarding persons convicted of a registrable offense, as defined. AB 2701 failed passage in this committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. SB 717 (Richardson), of the 2025-26 Legislative Session, would have required maintenance of statewide and regional infrastructures and systems, as well as a statewide cancer reporting system. SB 717 was vetoed by the Governor.
   2. AB 1321 (Castillo), of the 2025-26 Legislative Session, would have required the Attorney General to establish, in consultation with specified groups, agencies, and organizations, an electronic database and support system, as specified, for the public to report and search for missing children, as specified. AB 1321 was held in this committee.
   3. SB 344 (Rubio), Chapter 867, Statutes of 2023, authorizes the sharing of information collected if the original disclosure is for research that requires researchers to participate in data sharing with specified entities, provided the disclosed data does not include individually identifiable data that could be reasonably used to identify or reidentify the data with an individual person.
   4. SB 362 (Becker), Chapter 709, Statutes of 2023, requires a data broker to register with, pay a registration fee to, and provide information to, the California Privacy Protection Agency instead of the Attorney General and would require the California Privacy Protection Agency to maintain an informational internet website.
   5. SB 1277 (Florez), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have authorized DOJ to create a registry for people convicted of specified animal abuse offenses. SB 1277 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   6. AB 416 (Block), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have required a care provider, as defined, to report a substantiated case of abuse of a consumer by a direct service worker to the appropriate investigating agencies. AB 416 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   7. AB 416 (Garcia), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would have required DOJ to make specified personal identifying information in the arson registry available to the public on its Internet Web site. AB 416 died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   8. AB 488 (Parra), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2004, provides that public dissemination of sex offender information pursuant to “Megan’s Law” shall occur through an Internet web site operated by DOJ.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Angel's Furry Friends Rescue
Animal Rescue Mission
Animal Rescuers for Change
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Eartheart
Feline Lucky Adventures
Fix Our Shelters
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund
In Defense of Animals
Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation
Lockwood Animal Rescue Center
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Los Angeles County Democrats for the Protection of Animals
Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation
NY 4 Whales
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Plant-based Advocates
Project Humanekind
Project Minnie
Rabbit Savior
Real Good Rescue
Sagemodern
Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Social Compassion in Legislation
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Canine Condition
The Pet Loss Support Group
The Spayce Project
Underdog Heroes, INC.
Women United for Animal Welfare (WUFAW)
8 Private Individuals

Oppose

ACLU California Action
American Kennel Club, INC.
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
San Francisco Public Defender

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Position Statement on Animal Abuse Registries (2026) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals <https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-animal-abuser-registries> [as of Apr. 8, 2026]. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Arluke, A., et al. International Handbook on Animal Abuse Studies, at pp.117-29 [Animal Hoarding] (2017) <https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-43183-7> [as of Apr. 8, 2026]. ↑

5. Tennessee Animal Abuse Registry. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation <https://www.tn.gov/tbi/tennessee-animal-abuse-registry.html> [as of Apr. 7, 2026]. ↑

6. Animal Abuse Registries by County in New York State. New York State Humane Association <https://www.nyshumane.org/animal-abuser-registries-nys/> [as of Apr. 7, 2026]. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Love, N. Bipartisan push for statewide animal abuse registry aims to close county gaps (Feb. 27, 2026) Spectrum Local News 1 <https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2026/02/27/bipartisan-push-for-statewide-animal-abuse-registry-aims-to-close-county-gaps> [as of Apr. 7, 2026]. ↑

9. Pet Abuse (2026) <https://www.pet-abuse.com/> [as of Apr. 8, 2026]. ↑

10. ↑

11. Supra, note 1. ↑

12. Ibid. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑