Monday Vote On California Dog Bill

eaglerock814

Posted : 7/10/2008 7:56:01 AM

Two Chances To Stop California AB 1634

Dog Vigilante Bill Faces Monday Vote, Your Opposition Vital

By JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@csonline.net

SACRAMENTO, CA – The state Senate Appropriations Committee is rushing through a bill that would turn anyone and everyone into a dog and cat law vigilante, while denying dog owners the ability to prove their innocence or to appeal. This legislation provides for civil penalties based solely on an accusation, and a third offense mandates spaying or neutering a dog or cat that is accused of being in violation of any animal law.

A hearing on AB 1634 has been pushed up to 10 a.m. this coming Monday, July 14, and it is possible the full Senate could vote on the measure when it convenes the same day at 2 p.m. The hearing originally was scheduled for August, but its sponsors pulled political strings to change this to July 14.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all California dog owners to take immediate action to let their own senator and members of the committee know that this harmful and unconstitutional measure must be stopped. Out of state residents also must speak up, because it would be too risky to bring a dog into California for hunting, field trials, competitive events or even a vacation.

Thus far, most dog owners have remained silent on this legislation. Silence and inaction are the only reasons this legislation has advanced to the finish line, as the vast majority of dog owners are quietly opposed to it. Please take action before Monday as citizens, and also support one or more of the fine organizations that are working to protect your rights.

The Appropriations Committee deals only with fiscal aspects of the legislation, but this is the last remaining chance for dog owners to stop this nightmare legislation before the full Senate votes on it.

Two letters are needed from every dog owner:

A letter to members of the Appropriations Committee talking about the fiscal aspects of AB 1634.

And a letter to your own senator talking about your reasons for being opposed to AB 1634.

Written letters sent by USPS mail are preferable, and faxes also are good. Phone calls can be effective, but emails are the least effective means of communication.

We also urge dog owners to attend Monday’s hearing and voice your opposition, and personal contacts with senators at their district offices may be possible this week.

The major fiscal issue for the Appropriations Committee is the cost of the legislation to California taxpayers. Fiscal issues alone could block this bill, as there is no budget prepared to implement it. Budgets are required for any legislation that will cost the state more than $150 million – and this bill certainly will cost much more than that.

Supporters of the bill claim that it won’t cost anything, but this is false. California law requires full reimbursement to municipalities for the cost of carrying out any mandate in state law.

The legislation will result in tens of thousands of complaints every year, and animal control officers will have to investigate every one of them to decide whether or not to file charges. This will result in having to hire scores of new animal control officers at a minimum cost of $50,000 each per year in direct salaries and benefits, plus the cost of their training, vehicles, office space and other expenses. Considerable clerical time also would be involved, to process citations, enforce penalties and assure compliance.

Please also object to the lack of public notice of this hearing, and also to the failure to provide public access to the official fiscal analysis of this bill in time to submit formal comments. This fiscal analysis will not be finished until late Sunday, only a few hours before the hearing.

Here is phone, fax and email contact information for members of the Appropriations Committee (all area codes are 916):

SENATOR	PHONE	FAX	EMAIL
Torlakson, Tom [D-Chair]	651-4007	445-2527	Senator.torlakson@sen.ca.gov
Cox, Dave [R-Vice Chair]	651-4001	324-2680	Senator.cox@sen.ca.gov
Aanestad, Samuel [R]	651-4004	445-7750	Senator.aanestad@sen.ca.gov
Ashburn, Roy [R]	651-4018	322-3304	Senator.ashburn@sen.ca.gov
Cedillo, Gilbert	651-4022	327-8817	Senator.cedillo@sen.ca.gov
Corbett, Ellen	651-4010	327-2433	Senator.corbett@sen.ca.gov
Dutton, Robert [R]	651-4031	327-2272	Senator.dutton@sen.ca.gov
Florez, Dean	651-4016	327-5989	Senator.florez@sen.ca.gov
Kuehl, Sheila	651-4023	324-4823	Senator.kuehl@sen.ca.gov
Oropeza, Jenny	651-4028	323-6056	Senator.oropeza@sen.ca.gov
Ridley-Thomas, Mark	651-4026	445-8899	Senator.ridley-thomas@sen.ca.gov
Runner, George [R]	651-4017	445-4662	Senator.runner@sen.ca.gov
Simitian, Joe	651-4011	323-4529	Senator.simitian@sen.ca.gov
Wyland, Mark [R]	651-4038	446-7382	Senator.wyland@sen.ca.gov
Yee, Leland	651-4008	327-2186	Senator.yee@sen.ca.gov

This link will give each senator’s mailing address and district office address, and also complete contact information for all senators who are not members of the Appropriations Committee: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. You can find your senator from this list, simply by clicking on the correct name.

Please also let your senator know why you are opposed to this legislation.

We are opposed to AB 1634 because it says that:

Anyone is given the power to make an unsubstantiated allegation that a dog or cat owner is in violation of any law or ordinance. No proof is required. Animal rights activists can and will have the power to become vigilantes. Frayed relations between neighbors can and will become legal actions.

Animal control officers can file a citation based on these unproven allegations, resulting in both fines and civil penalties. All state and local dog laws apply, except for barking dog ordinances. Proof of a violation is not required. An officer’s opinion is all the proof that the legislation requires.

Civil penalties do not require the officer to prove that a violation of a law has occurred. A dog or cat owner is denied her/his day in court. There is no way to defend oneself. There is no appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

Animal rights activists also will be given the power to enforce the law. The bill says that any public or private entity that has the power to enforce animal laws can issue a citation and assess civil penalties. This includes various private organizations with strong animal rights leanings that are empowered to enforce animal cruelty laws in California.

For the first offense, the civil penalty is $50. The penalty for the second offense is $100. For the third offense, the local animal control board must order the dog or cat to be spayed or neutered. There is no appeal. If the owner cannot or will not comply, the animal can be confiscated.

Cities and counties are given unlimited power to pass more stringent ordinances, or to increase the amount of civil penalties.

These provisions are a wholesale desecration of every American’s constitutional right of due process under the law. Accusations do not have to be proven. There is no opportunity to defend oneself. There is no appeal. This legislation imposes the legal system of a totalitarian state on every Californian. This legislation is far more oppressive than the legal systems in Communist China or Iran. An accused person would receive more justice from the Taliban than the State of California, if AB 1634 passes into law.

Before contacting senators, it is important to become familiar with the legislation. Many senators have not read the bill for themselves, and are relying upon biased and inaccurate summaries from party leadership. Please study our objections above, and read the bill for yourself: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080701_amended_sen_v90.html. Prepare a short summary of your objections prior to phoning or visiting a senator’s office.

Although the committee has scheduled a hearing, one might not be held. Senate procedures allow the committee member to make a roll call vote on several bills at once, without accepting testimony or providing for debate. Because many different bills are before the committee on Monday, this “fast track” procedure is possible. If a large number of dog owners attend the hearing, the senators might think twice before passing it without a hearing.

If you can attend the hearing, a formal request to testify might (but there are no guarantees) force the committee to hold a proper hearing. If you are able to testify, please make a formal request to Committee Staff Director Bob Franzoia at Bob.Franzoia@sen.ca.gov, and the Chairman, Sen.Tom Torlakson (916-651-4007) or Vice Chair, Sen. Dave Cox (916-651-4001). Please remember that testimony will be taken only on fiscal issues.

Out of state residents also should contact Senate leaders and state tourism groups to say that you will boycott coming to California if this bill passes:

California Travel and Tourism Commission: Caroline Beteta, President and CEO, cbeteta@visitcalifornia.com; Phone: (916)319-5420; Fax: (916) 444-0410

California Division of Tourism: Wendy Arzaga-Messersmith, Assoc Gov. Program Analyst; warzaga@tourism.ca.gov; Phone: (916)323-3807; Fax:(916)322-3402.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence. PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

ron2

Posted : 7/11/2008 5:56:54 AM

eaglerock814

Anyone is given the power to make an unsubstantiated allegation that a dog or cat owner is in violation of any law or ordinance. No proof is required. Animal rights activists can and will have the power to become vigilantes. Frayed relations between neighbors can and will become legal actions.

Animal control officers can file a citation based on these unproven allegations, resulting in both fines and civil penalties. All state and local dog laws apply, except for barking dog ordinances. Proof of a violation is not required. An officer’s opinion is all the proof that the legislation requires.

Civil penalties do not require the officer to prove that a violation of a law has occurred. A dog or cat owner is denied her/his day in court. There is no way to defend oneself. There is no appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

These are violations of constitutional law. Violation of due process of law. A first year law student could get this thrown out. Also, the appeals process cannot be controlled by the state. The appeals process is governed by the US Circuit Courts. ACO's do not write tickets, per se. They seize animals and must present proof to the judge involved that the seizure was necessary. Often, they have to get a warrant to even seize an animal and the warrant is actually served by a police officer.

Civil penalties are different than criminal penalties. Police depts cannot press civil lawsuits. Prosecuting attorneys for cities and counties cannot press civil suits against a private person.

This law, if it's this badly written, breaks the Constitutions of both the US and California.

Private citizens, even as a class action, however, may file suits.

Marklf

Posted : 7/11/2008 8:08:18 AM

ron2
These are violations of constitutional law. Violation of due process of law. A first year law student could get this thrown out. Also, the appeals process cannot be controlled by the state. The appeals process is governed by the US Circuit Courts.

Although I believe the original poster has a misinterpreted some of the provisions in this bill (nothing that I have seen in reading the bill prevents one from normal due process) I think that either I am misreading your posts or there are some things that need to be clarified. The appeals process for state laws is indeed controlled by the state. The only way the federal courts could have jurisdiction would be if there is a federal offense or the state law violates the Constitution.

ron2
The appeals process is governed by the US Circuit Courts. ACO's do not write tickets, per se. They seize animals and must present proof to the judge involved that the seizure was necessary.

Actually AC in many jurisdictions can and do write tickets or "citations" this law specifically gives them the authority to write citations for certain offenses in CA.

ron2

Civil penalties are different than criminal penalties. Police depts cannot press civil lawsuits. Prosecuting attorneys for cities and counties cannot press civil suits against a private person.

You are correct that civil penalties are different from criminal penalties however the prosecuting attorneys can and do pursue civil penalties. For example simple speeding is punishable by a civil penalty but if the person is exceeding the speed limit by too much that can become reckless driving which in some states is punishable by "criminal" penalties. Both the simple speeding and the reckless driving are prosecuted by the city or county prosecuting attorney.

ron2

This law, if it's this badly written, breaks the Constitutions of both the US and California.

Having read through the law as amended it may have some problems in it but it is not as badly written as the OP seems to imply.

Mark

whtsthfrequency

Posted : 7/11/2008 11:32:02 AM

There is nothing in the bill that says a complaint has to be proven. I think that's pretty clear.

30804.8.  (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is

the subject of a complaint may be

cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as

provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to

any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or

local ordinance......



   (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply:

   (1) "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local

animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the

dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that

relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint"

also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local

animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that

violates this division, any other provision of state law that

relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint"

shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

Marklf

Posted : 7/11/2008 12:44:29 PM

whtsthfrequency

There is nothing in the bill that says a complaint has to be proven. I think that's pretty clear.

30804.8.  (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog be citedthat is

the subject of a complaint may be

cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as

provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to

any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or

local ordinance......



   (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply:

   (1) "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local

animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the

dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that

relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint"

also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local

animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that

violates this division, any other provision of state law that

relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint"

shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

I do not believe this law supersedes the state and federal constitutions as far as the requirements for the state to prove its case. It is not unusual for laws to be written in this manner. If a person is issued a citation they have two choices the first is to pay it and the second is to not pay it. If the person takes the second option they go to court and plead their case. However that is not spelled out in each and every law that is passed. The basic standards are that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if it is a criminal case or by a preponderance of evidence in a civil case (which is what this would be). My reading of this statute allows someone who witnesses a offense to be able to file a complaint and if AC determines that the complaint is valid they can issue a citation. Without that provision law enforcement officer are generally only allow to act on misdemeanors if they themselves witness it. That is not very practical in many cases dealing with dogs. For example if my neighbors dog is allowed to run loose chases after my dog I would be able to call AC and make a complaint. By the time AC shows up however the neighbors dog has returned to its home. Without that provision AC would not be able to take any action but with it they can check out my complaint and if they find my complaint to be credible (meaning they could talk to other witnesses or see cuts on my dog...) they could now cite the owner of the dog that was loose. If the owner of the other dog felt that his dog had done nothing wrong then I see nothing in this bill that would prevent him from not paying the "ticket" and going to court to plead his case.

Mark

edited to add--- I am not really sure what one would appeal under this statute. I believe that this requires that dogs be neutered/spayed. If someone files a complaint about your dog and it is already S/N then there is no problem. If it is not spayed or neutered then you would have to show that it falls under one of the exceptions. If it does not fall under one of the exceptions then you are in violation but for a first and second offense all you have to do is pay a small fine. Third offense the dog gets S/N. What really is there to appeal about that? By the way if an owner is cited and then gets the dog S/N within a certain time frame the fine is done away with.