Animal abuse: penalties.
Summary
Existing law provides that upon the conviction of a person for a violation of a specified law regarding the failure to care for animals, the court is authorized to make an order prohibiting the defendant, as a condition of probation, from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals of any kind and to order the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or her possession to a designated public entity, as specified. Existing law requires the court, in the event of acquittal or final discharge of a person arrested pursuant to these provisions, to direct the release of the seized or impounded animals, on demand, upon a showing of proof of ownership. This bill would instead require the court to make the orders above regarding ownership and forfeiture, as specified. The bill would require the owner to make additional showings in order for the court to direct the release of seized or impounded animals. Existing law provides that the cost of seizing, caring for, and treating any animal seized pursuant to specified provisions regarding the failure to care for animals shall constitute a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid. Existing law provides that no animal properly seized pursuant to these provisions shall be returned to its owner until, in the determination of the seizing agency or hearing officer, the animal is physically fit, or the owner can demonstrate that the owner can and will provide the necessary care. This bill would additionally apply these provisions to animals seized pursuant to a search warrant. The bill would, in the event that the owner has satisfied the lien, provide a process for the seizing agency or prosecuting attorney to file a petition seeking forfeiture of any animal, as specified. Existing law establishes various other crimes regarding cruelty to animals and the failure to care for animals. This bill would require the court, upon conviction of a person for certain of these crimes, in addition to any other sentence or penalty, to enter an order enjoining the person from owning, possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for any animal within a specified period after conviction, and would make related changes. The bill would make a violation of this order a misdemeanor, as specified. The bill would provide that the court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the duration of, or, in the case of livestock owners, exempt a defendant from, these restrictions under specified circumstances. By creating a new crime and by increasing the duties of local humane officers, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2009
Assembly Passage
Jun 2009
Senate Passage
Sep 2009
Vetoed
Oct 2009
Introduced Feb 10, 2009
Vetoed Oct 26, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Sep 3, 2009 · Assembly Jun 2, 2009
How they voted
27–4
Passed · 8 other
Total votes 39
Sep 3, 2009
D
Democratic25
80% Yea
R
Republican14
50% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
34
Key actions
12
Committee
10
Amendments
8
Jan 14, 2010
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
lower
Oct 26, 2009
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
lower
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Sep 9, 2009
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 3158.)
lower
Sep 8, 2009
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 10 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Sep 3, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (27-4-8)
senate
Aug 18, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (August 17).
upper
Jul 16, 2009
Upper · Passed
Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jul 15, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14).
upper
Jul 1, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 29, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 22, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 18, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 2, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (56-11-3)
assembly
May 26, 2009
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
May 21, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 13. Noes 1.) (May 20).
lower
May 13, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Apr 29, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Apr 15, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 14).
lower
Apr 13, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Apr 13, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 9, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 11, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.
lower
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
PN
Pedro Nava
DDemocratic
Co
DF
Dean Florez
DDemocratic
Co
Mark DeSaulnier
DDemocratic
Co
Ted Lieu
DDemocratic
Co
TA
Tom Ammiano
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 243
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 243. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline