Assembly Bill 793
Animals taken into custody
Topics: Animal: Treatment, County, Court: Procedure, Municipality, Police
Passed the Assembly, then stopped
The Assembly passed it on Apr 20, 2010, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to . To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Mar 2, 2010
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Apr 20, 2010
-
Senate vote, stopped here
Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
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.
Read the full summary Show less
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 into custody. The bill requires the owner to serve a copy of the petition on the contractor with custody of the animal as well as on the political subdivision. This bill generally requires the court to hold a hearing on the issue of whether the animal was improperly taken into custody or withheld within 10 days of the filing of the petition.
Other petitions concerning animals in custody Under current law, a political subdivision may petition a court for an order with respect to an animal taken into custody or withheld from the owner. The political subdivision must notify the owner of the animal when it files a petition. In a petition, a political subdivision may ask the court to provide for payment for the custody and care for the animal, to require the owner to post bond for the costs of custody and care for the animal pending the outcome of another court proceeding (such as a criminal case related to the animal), or to authorize the sale, destruction, or other disposal of the animal. The court may grant, modify, or deny petitioned-for relief, after considering the interests of the animal, the owner of the animal, the political subdivision, and the public. If an owner does not comply with an order directed to the owner, the animal is treated as an unclaimed animal, which means that the entity with custody of the animal may dispose of the animal by, for example, releasing it to another person.
This bill allows a contractor with custody of an animal, in addition to a political subdivision, to petition a court for an order with respect to the animal. The bill requires the contractor to notify the owner and the political subdivision when it petitions the court for an order with respect to the animal and to notify the district attorney if it is alleged that the animal was mistreated in violation of state law or was involved in animal fighting. The bill requires a political subdivision to notify a contractor with custody of an animal, in addition to the owner, when it petitions a court for an order with respect to the animal and to notify the district attorney if it is alleged that the animal was mistreated in violation of state law or was involved in animal fighting.
The bill authorizes a political subdivision or contractor that petitions the court for an order with respect to an animal to ask the court to require the owner of the animal to pay funds into the court for the costs of custody and care for the animal pending the outcome of another court proceeding. If the court requires the owner of the animal to pay funds into the court, funds must be periodically disbursed to the person with custody to cover the person's reasonable costs. If the owner does not comply with an order, the animal is treated as an unclaimed animal. The bill also authorizes a political subdivision or contractor to petition a court to release an animal to its owner pending the outcome of another court proceeding, but only if the owner is not alleged to have mistreated the animal in violation of state law or to have violated the law prohibiting animal fighting and only if other specified conditions are satisfied.
The bill generally requires the court to hold a hearing on a petition filed by a political subdivision or contractor within 10 days of the filing of the petition.
Order by criminal court Under this bill, if there is a case charging mistreatment of an animal in violation of state law or violation of the laws relating to animal fighting and an animal allegedly involved in the violation is in custody under the civil laws described above, the defendant or the district attorney may request the criminal court to order that the animal be retained in custody for a period that is reasonable to allow the collection of evidence relating to the animal. The bill requires the criminal court to provide a copy of such an order to the person with custody of the animal and to any court in which a case is pending under the civil laws described above.
The bill requires a person with custody of an animal and any court in which a case is pending under the civil laws described above to ensure that the animal remains in custody until the end of the period specified in the criminal court's order.
The ultimate disposition of the animal after the period specified in the order is determined under the civil laws described above.
Who's behind it
7 representatives are its . 6 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.
4 more lawmakers .
See all 11 names Hide the names
Authors (7)
- Terese Berceau · Democrat, Assembly
- Spencer Black · Democrat, Assembly
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Gary Hebl · Democrat, Assembly
- Sandy Pasch · Democrat, Assembly
- Mark Pocan · Democrat, Assembly
- Sondy Pope · Democrat, Assembly
Signed on in support (4)
- Tim Carpenter · Democrat, Senate
- Jon Erpenbach · Democrat, Senate
- Mark Miller · Democrat, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There was one vote on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts vote on an amendment
Passed, 12 to 0 · Apr 6, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Corrections and the Courts, Ayes 12, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 28, 2010
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Apr 21, 2010
Sent to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.
-
Apr 21, 2010
The Senate received it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Assembly passed it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Apr 6, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Apr 6, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 9 to 3.
-
Mar 24, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 11, 2010
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 2, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts.
-
Mar 2, 2010
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Pocan, Berceau, Black, Brooks, Hebl, Pasch and Pope-Roberts;Cosponsored by Senators Risser, Carpenter, Erpenbach and Miller
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Corrections and the Courts
- Mar 11, 2010 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Mar 24, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 30, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Pocan
- Apr 1, 2010 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Corrections and the Courts, Ayes 12, Noes 0
- Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Corrections and the Courts, Ayes 9, Noes 3
- Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representatives Pocan and Brooks
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 11:14 A.M. on 4-20-2010 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 23
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 2 adopted
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 21, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Apr 21, 2010 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations
- Apr 28, 2010 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote