Official Summary Text
AB 793, as amended, Schultz.
Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the 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 authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the
evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines “potentially dangerous dog” and “vicious dog” as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.
This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make
explicit
factual
findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog
engaged in unprovoked conduct.
was provoked.
The bill would define the
terms
term
“provoke”
and “unprovoked”
for purposes of these provisions.
The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing
evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings.
The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified.
(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as
specified.
(3) 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 if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.
This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare.
(4) This bill would provide that the
above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies.
(5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.