Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 580

Animals taken into custody

Topics: Animal: Treatment, County, Court: Procedure, Municipality, Police

Stopped before the full Senate voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Senate never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 2, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Senate never voted on it.

  4. Assembly vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

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

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

4 senators are its ⁠. All 4 are Democrats.

7 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 11 names

Authors (4)

Signed on in support (7)

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.

Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations vote on an amendment

Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 12, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 12, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.

  3. Apr 12, 2010

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  4. Apr 6, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Mar 31, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Mar 2, 2010

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.

  7. Mar 2, 2010

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 2, 2010 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Risser, Carpenter, Miller and Erpenbach;Cosponsored by Representatives Pocan, Berceau, Black, Brooks, Hebl, Pasch and Pope-Roberts

  2. Mar 2, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations

  3. Mar 31, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 2, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Risser

  5. Apr 6, 2010 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  6. Apr 8, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  7. Apr 12, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  8. Apr 12, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0 by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations

  9. Apr 12, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  10. Apr 12, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  11. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

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