Dog licensing: microchip implants.
Summary
Existing law requires that dogs that attain the age of 4 months be licensed and wear a collar to which an identification or license tag is attached. A dog that is found running at large without the identification tag or dog license tag may be seized and impounded by any peace officer. Existing law requires the owner of the dog that has been impounded to pay a fee to reclaim the dog. Existing law also prohibits any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from selling or giving away to a new owner any dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered. A violation of these provisions is either an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill would prohibit any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from releasing to an owner seeking to reclaim his or her dog or cat, or selling or giving away to a new owner, a dog or cat that has not been microchipped, except under a specified circumstance. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Jul 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Vetoed
Mar 2012
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Vetoed Mar 1, 2012
Floor votes · Senate May 31, 2011 · Assembly Aug 25, 2011
How they voted
32–6
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 39
May 31, 2011
D
Democratic24
100% Yea
R
Republican15
53% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
26
Key actions
4
Committee
7
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Veto sustained.
upper
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 7, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 7, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 25, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (49-23-7)
assembly
Jul 6, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (July 6).
lower
Jun 21, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 9, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
May 31, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (32-6-1)
senate
May 17, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
May 3, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1. Page 849.) (May 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
upper
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 18, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Ted Lieu
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 702
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 702. 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