AB 793

This bill changes the laws related to animals that are taken into custody on

behalf of a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision).

Seizure and withholding of animals

Current law authorizes a humane officer or law enforcement officer to take

custody of an animal on behalf of a political subdivision for a number of reasons,

including that the animal is a stray or that the humane officer or law enforcement

officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal has been involved in animal

fighting or has been mistreated in violation of state law. Under current law, a

political subdivision may contract with another person (contractor), such as a

humane society, to provide custody and care of animals taken into custody on behalf

of the political subdivision.

Under current law, an animal taken into custody must generally be returned

to its owner if the owner provides reasonable evidence of ownership, provides for any

required licensure and vaccination of the animal, and pays the costs of custody and

care of the animal. Under this bill, an owner who wishes to obtain the return of an

animal in custody must also arrange to have a microchip implanted in the animal for

identification.

Current law authorizes a political subdivision to withhold an animal from its

owner if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the owner has mistreated the

animal in violation of state law; there are reasonable grounds to believe that the

animal poses a significant threat to public health, safety or welfare; the animal may

be used as evidence in a pending prosecution; or a court has ordered the animal

withheld for any reason.

If an animal is taken into custody because the animal is alleged to have been

involved in fighting, current law requires the animal to be kept in custody pending

the resolution of criminal charges relating to the alleged animal fighting. This bill

eliminates the provision requiring an animal alleged to have been involved in

fighting to be maintained in custody pending the outcome of the charges. Under this

bill, the provisions relating to an animal in custody that is believed to have been

involved in animal fighting are the same as those relating to an animal believed to

have been mistreated in violation of state law.

Petitions seeking return of animals in custody

Under current law, a person claiming that an animal that he or she owns was

improperly taken into custody or withheld by or on behalf of a political subdivision

may petition a court to order the return of the animal. The court must order the

animal returned to the owner unless the court makes one of several specified

determinations. One basis for denying a petition is that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the owner has mistreated the animal in violation of state law.

Under this bill, the owner of an animal must file a petition for return of the

animal no later than the seventh day after the day on which the animal was taken