Plain English Breakdown
The source text contains conflicting or unclear phrasing regarding whether 'clear and convincing evidence' applies to both vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. The summary reflects the specific sentence structure in the bill which explicitly links this standard to determining if a dog is 'vicious', while requiring factual findings for both categories.
AB-793: Stricter Rules for Labeling Dogs as Dangerous or Vicious
This law raises the level of proof needed to label a dog as vicious, requires courts to list specific facts about whether a dog was provoked, and sets higher standards before an order can be issued to end a dog's life.
What This Bill Does
- Requires clear and convincing evidence instead of just 'more likely than not' to prove a dog is vicious in court or hearing proceedings.
- Mandates that judges or hearing officers write down specific facts showing each requirement for labeling a dog as potentially dangerous or vicious has been met, including whether the dog acted without being provoked.
- Defines what it means to 'provoke' and be 'unprovoked' so courts can use these terms consistently in these cases.
- Requires clear and convincing evidence before an order is issued to end a dog's life due to public safety risks.
- Prohibits labeling a dog as dangerous or vicious if the injury happened while someone was provoking the animal.
Who It Names or Affects
- Courts and hearing officers who decide on cases involving dogs
- Animal control departments and law enforcement agencies that file petitions against dogs
- Dog owners whose pets are involved in incidents with people or other animals
Terms To Know
- Clear and convincing evidence
- A high level of proof where the facts must be highly probable, which is harder to meet than just showing something is more likely true than not.
- Provoked conduct
- Actions taken by a person that cause or encourage a dog to react aggressively; this bill defines these terms for use in court cases about dangerous dogs.
Limits and Unknowns
- These rules only apply to government and court cases about public safety risks posed by individual dogs; they do not change how people sue each other in civil courts.
- The law applies to all cities and counties, including those with their own charters.