Official Summary Text
AB 2574, as amended, Alanis.
Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: notice of owner’s or keeper’s rights.
Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. Existing law requires the chief officer of a public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of a local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law requires notification to the owner or keeper of a dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity and that the owner or keeper of the dog is authorized to present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared
potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law requires the owner or keeper of the dog to be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. Existing law requires
that
the hearing
to
be held promptly within no less than 5 working days and not more than 10 working days after service of notice. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement or animal control officer, if upon investigation it is determined that probable cause exists to believe a dog poses an immediate threat to public safety, to seize and impound the dog pending a hearing to determine whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law requires, after that hearing, the owner or keeper of the dog to be notified in writing of the determination and
orders issued and, if a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, requires the owner or keeper of the dog to take specified action, as provided. Existing law authorizes the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog to, within 5 days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision, as specified. Under existing law, the court hearing the appeal is required to conduct the hearing de
novo
novo, without a jury,
and to decide the issue upon the preponderance of the evidence. Existing law requires that the determination of the court hearing the appeal be final and conclusive on all parties.
Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from
adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that includes all, part, or none of these provisions, if that program does not regulate potentially dangerous or vicious dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.
This bill would instead require a city or county to comply with the above-described hearing, notification, and appeal provisions.
The
This
bill would also require, at least 5 working days before each public hearing, the court or hearing entity to post notice of the public hearing in an easily identifiable and accessible location of its internet
website.
This
website. The
bill would require the court or hearing entity to admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses. The bill would authorize the court or hearing entity to limit the scope of discovery and to shorten the time to produce records or witnesses, but only when necessary to prevent delay of the proceeding or prevent undue hardship to a party or witness. The bill would repeal the requirement that the determination of the court hearing the appeal be final and conclusive on all parties.
This bill would require a law enforcement or animal control officer, if a dog is seized and impounded pending a hearing to determine whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or
vicious, to provide a notice of rights to the owner or keeper of the dog at the same time as the above-described notice of hearing. The bill would require that the notice include a detailed description of the reason the owner’s or keeper’s dog is being seized and impounded and specified information on the hearing procedures. The bill would require the person serving a notice of rights, if the notice is served personally, to affirm its validity and document the location, date, and time of the service, and, to the extent feasible, the name of the person who was provided the notice. The bill would require the law enforcement or animal control officer providing the notice to retain a copy of the mailing receipt or the
signed
affirmation
for
of
the information specified above for no less than 6 months following the exhaustion of all appeals.
To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement and animal control agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.