H.B. 5561 (H-2): COMMITTEE SUMMARY FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP
House Bill 5561 (Substitute H-2 as passed by the House) Sponsor: Representative John Jellema
House Committee: Judiciary and Civil Rights Senate Committee: Agriculture and Forestry
Date Completed: 11-8-96
The bill would amend the Michigan Penal Code to do the following:
-- Allow a prosecuting attorney to file a petition for forfeiture of an animal to a dog pound, animal shelter, or veterinarian before the final disposition of a criminal action for certain animal cruelty violations.
-- Make it a felony to commit a second or subsequent animal cruelty violation.
-- Authorize a court to order temporary or permanent relinquishment of animal ownership for a second or subsequent animal cruelty violation.
-- Revise provisions that permit specific lawful uses of animals.
Forfeiture Petition
If an animal were impounded and were being held by a dog pound or animal shelter or a licensed veterinarian pending outcome of criminal action charging a violation of the Code’s animal cruelty provisions (described below), or the provisions concerning the willful and malicious killing or injuring of animals (MCL 750.50b), before final disposition of the criminal charge, the prosecuting attorney could file a petition in the criminal action requesting that the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the dog pound or animal shelter or a licensed veterinarian before final disposition of the criminal charge. (“Dog pound” would mean a facility operated by a county, city, village, or township to impound and care for animals found in streets or otherwise at large contrary to any ordinance of the county, city, village, or township or State law. “Animal shelter” would mean a facility operated by a person, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other nonprofit organization for the care of homeless animals.)
The petitioner would have to serve a true copy of the petition on the defendant and upon a person with a known ownership interest or known security interest in the animal or a person who had filed a lien with the Secretary of State in an animal involved in the pending action. Upon receiving a petition, the court would have to set a hearing on it, which would have to be conducted within 14 days of the petition’s filing or as soon as practicable. At the hearing, the petitioner would have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation, as specified above, had occurred. If the court found that the petitioner had net this burden, it would have to order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the dog pound, animal shelter, or licensed veterinarian, unless the defendant, within 72 hours of the hearing, submitted to the court clerk cash or other form of security in an amount determined by the court to be sufficient to repay all reasonable costs
incurred, and anticipated to be incurred, by the pound, shelter, or veterinarian in caring for the animal from the date of initial impoundment to the trial date.
If cash or other security had been submitted, and the trial in the action were continued at a later date, any order of continuance would have to require the defendant to submit additional cash or security in an amount determined by the court that would be sufficient to repay all additional reasonable costs anticipated to be incurred by the pound, shelter, or veterinarian in caring for the animal until the new trial date. If the defendant submitted cash or other security to the court under these provisions, the court could enter an order authorizing the use of that money or other security before final disposition of the criminal charges to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the dog pound, animal shelter, or veterinarian in caring for the animal from the date of impoundment to the date of final disposition of the criminal charges.
Criminal Penalty
The Code’s animal cruelty provisions prohibit a person from failing to provide an animal with adequate care; cruelly driving, working, or beating an animal, or causing an animal to be cruelly driven, worked, or beaten; carrying in or upon a vehicle or otherwise any live animal whose feet or legs are tied together, or a horse whose feet are hobbled; carrying a live animal in or upon a vehicle or otherwise without providing a secure space or cage in which livestock may stand and other animals may turn around and lie down; abandoning an animal without making provisions for its adequate care; or willfully or negligently allowing any animal to suffer unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain. A person who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for up to 93 days, a fine of up to $1,000, community service for up to 200 hours, or any combination of these penalties. Under the bill, a violator also could be liable for the costs of prosecution.
A person who violated the animal cruelty provisions on a second occasion would be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to $2,000, community service for up to 300 hours, or any combination of these penalties and the cost of prosecution. A person who violated the animal cruelty provisions on a third or subsequent occasion would be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to four years, a fine of up to $5,000, community service for up to 500 hours, or any combination of these penalties and the cost of prosecution.
The Code permits the court, as part of the sentence for an animal cruelty violation, to order the defendant, as a condition of probation, not to own or possess an animal for a period of time not to exceed the period of probation. Under the bill, if a person were convicted of a second or subsequent violation, a court order under this provision could order the defendant not to own or possess an animal for any period of time, which could include permanent relinquishment of animal ownership.
Lawful Use
The Code specifies that the animal cruelty provisions do not prohibit the lawful use of an animal, including but not limited to the following: fishing; hunting, trapping, or wildlife control; horse racing; the operation of a zoological park or aquarium; pest or rodent control; scientific research; or farming or animal husbandry. The bill specifies that the Code would not prohibit the “lawful killing or other use” of an animal. The bill would retain the currently permitted activities but would refer to hunting, trapping, or wildlife control regulated pursuant to the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act; farming or a generally accepted animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock; scientific research pursuant to Public Act 224 of 1969 (which regulates
dealers in and research facilities using dogs and cats for research purposes); scientific research pursuant to sections of the Public Health Code governing the use of animals in research; and activities authorized pursuant to rules promulgated under Section 9 of the Executive Reorganization Act (which authorizes department heads to promulgate rules and regulations).
MCL 750.50 Legislative Analyst: S. Margules
The bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State government.
The enhanced penalties for repeat offenders as proposed by the bill, could result in additional prison commitments to the Department of Corrections. While the bill would allow up to four years in prison, the judge also could sentence these individuals to jail or other local sanctions that would not result in increased State costs. There are currently no available data that might indicate the potential number of repeat offenders.
The bill would have no fiscal impact on the courts.
Fiscal Analyst: M. Hansen
S9596\S5561SA
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.