Seized and abandoned animals: full costs: forfeiture.

Existing law provides that the cost of seizing, caring for, and treating any stray, abandoned, or endangered animal seized pursuant to specified provisions regarding the failure to care for animals, or pursuant to a search warrant, 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, if these charges are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if an owner fails to pay charges permitted, as specified, and take possession of the animal within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of by the impounding officer. Existing law also 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 the hearing officer, the animal is physically fit, or the owner can demonstrate that he or she can and will provide the necessary care. Existing law requires, when an officer 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 safety of others, that prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings, the officer 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. Existing law authorizes the court to order, as a condition of probation, that a person convicted of violating these provisions be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with animals, and in the event of the acquittal or final discharge without conviction of the arrested person, the court is required, on demand, to direct the release of seized or impounded animals upon a showing of proof of ownership. The bill would, if an animal is deemed to have been abandoned because the owner has failed to pay the charges and take possession of the animal within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, authorize the seizing agency to dispose of the animal. The bill would also authorize a seizing agency or prosecuting attorney, in the case of cats and dogs, prior to final disposition of any criminal charges against the owner of an animal, to file a petition in the criminal proceeding requesting the court to issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency prior to the final disposition of the criminal charge. The bill would require notice and a hearing, as specified, and would impose upon the petitioner the burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that even if the owner is acquitted of the charges, he or she will not be legally permitted to retain the animal. If the petitioner meets his or her burden, the bill would require the court to order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition. The bill, in the event of the acquittal or final discharge without conviction of the person charged, would require the court, on demand, to direct the release of seized or impounded animals upon a showing of proof of ownership. Existing law provides that any person who has been convicted of certain crimes regarding cruelty to animals and the failure to care for animals, and who within a specified period after conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal, is guilty of a public offense punishable by a $1,000 fine. Existing law authorizes the court to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition if the defendant files a petition seeking that order and, at the subsequent hearing, establishes probable cause to believe specified facts, including that he or she does not present a danger to animals and has the ability to properly care for all the animals in his or her care. Existing law also authorizes the court to exempt owners of livestock from these restrictions if the defendant files a petition to establish that the imposition of these restrictions would result in substantial or undue economic hardship to the defendant's livelihood and that the defendant has the ability to properly care for all livestock in his or her care. This bill would require a defendant who files a petition seeking to reduce the duration of the mandatory ownership prohibition or an exemption, as described above, to establish the basis for granting the relief by a preponderance of the evidence. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code proposed in SB 1162, that would become operative only if SB 1162 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is chaptered last.