Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2012 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB301 | |
| HB245 | |
| HB179 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals and making
failure to care for five or more animals in a single
continuous episode a class C felony."
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, explained HB 179. He
stated that over the past several years animal control
officers had had to rescue multiple animals at one time in
the Mat-Su area. Troopers were issuing search warrants for
individuals for alleged abuse. Cases of abuse were
shocking, ant the bill worked to make five or more cases of
abuse a class C felony. The bill would provide a helpful
tool for prosecutors. He believed the gravity of the charge
should reflect the gravity of the situation. He was clear
that the legislation did not affect mushers who did a great
job caring for their dogs.
9:47:34 AM
MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, pointed to the
legislation. Currently under statute there were seven
counts of animal abuse: three class C felonies and four
misdemeanors. He looked at page 1, line 8 of the bill:
A person commits cruelty to animals if the person with
criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and,
as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes
severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the
animal.
Mr. Sica looked at page 2, line 11. The following would be
a class C misdemeanor within the legislation:
(If the animal cruelty occurs) with criminal
negligence, contemporaneously fails to care for five
or more animals and, as a result, causes the death of
five or more animals or causes severe physical pain or
prolonged suffering to five or more animals.
Mr. Sica spoke to the indeterminate fiscal notes. He
pointed to a "Stat Sheet" from the Department of Law (DOL)
displayed the number of offenses and cases related to
criminal negligent animal cruelty count 2 charge (copy on
file). He stated that the numbers range from one charge and
one defendant in 2008, to a high of 62 charges and 12 cases
in 2011. He stated that the fiscal impact would be zero or
almost zero. He stressed that the particular crime of
animal cruelty was infrequent, high profile, and impactful.
9:52:07 AM
PHIL MORGAN, ANIMAL CARE MANAGER, MAT-SU BOROUGH ANIMAL
SHELTER, PALMER (via teleconference), thanked the committee
for its time. He was currently driving to a location to
address a situation involving a number of dogs and cats
that had been neglected. He pointed out that work had been
done on the issue beginning in 2009. Officers had gone to
the location on a regular basis between 2009 and 2010 to
check on the animals; the owners were in financial trouble
and officers had checked on the dogs recently, which were
found to be in a deplorable state. He supported HB 179, and
believed it would help to enforce the issue. Animal
shelters needed something substantial to help enforce the
situation and he believed the current punishment was
woefully inadequate. The situations were very stressful and
costly on animal shelter staff, continued to get more
difficult. He urged the committee for its support of HB
179.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he had several family members
that volunteered at the Mat-Su animal shelter. He wondered
whether the proposed position was of the shelter, borough,
or personal. Mr. Morgan replied that if was a combination
of the borough manager, shelter, and personal position.
Representative Wilson noted that some people who may have
been accused of animal cruelty, were merely facing
financial straits, and were not intentionally harming
animals. She shared a story related to people who were
having trouble caring for animals, because of their
financial situation. She asked whether the people in the
description would be charged with a felony. Mr. Morgan
replied that he had not been to the site to provide more
detail. He remarked that the animal cruelty charges were
examined carefully, and he would need more information
about the specific case.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether there was a non-
judgmental clause that an individual could drop off an
animal they could no longer care for. Mr. Morgan replied
that no judgment was passed on people that approached the
shelter for help. He felt the punishment should fit the
crime.
10:00:55 AM
Representative Neuman discussed testimony that people did
not understand the gravity of the situation. He thought
that people could get into financial distress and not
understand that they were no longer able to care for
animals. He wondered whether the punishment would
Mr. Morgan replied that well minded people, just wanted to
help one more animal. The point was that after people had
been counseled and given other options he did not know what
else could be done.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that Anne Carpeneti, Assistant
Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal
Division, Department of Law would address the aspects of
criminal negligence.
Mr. Morgan remarked that he always wanted to understand the
other point of view; however, there had to be a higher
punishment once it reached the level of some of the cases
he had seen.
10:04:59 AM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, MEMBER, ANCHORAGE ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISOR
BOARD, had no desire to make the issue an emotional appeal.
The bill greatly addressed the crime, she expressed support
for the HB 179. She pointed to an Anchorage case that
involved dogs, cats, and birds. The case had taken over a
year and had cost the municipality over $77,000 to care for
the animals; once criminal neglect had been proven, they
were able to remove an additional 55 animals. The
organization believed that the punishment should fit the
crime. She urged the committee's support of the
legislation.
Mr. Sica pointed out that he had discussed animal cruelty
with Vice-chair Fairclough. He stated that the issue was
not related to individuals who did not feed their dogs for
several days, they were cases of severe neglect. He painted
a sad picture of animals impacted by neglect. He discussed
the public's level of outrage or scorn to fit the crime.
10:10:51 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, noted
that the department did not have a position on the bill.
Representative Costello asked what the sentence range was
for a class C felony. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the range
was zero to five years for a class C felony.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Ms. Carpeneti to provide the
statutory reference at a future hearing.
Representative Costello wondered what penalties were in
other states for comparable offences. Mr. Sica responded
that there were other states that had tougher felonies, for
even one count of animal cruelty.
Representative Costello asked whether a person could fall
under the law if dogs were loose and one got hit by a car.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that in order to fall under
criminal negligence it depended on the circumstance. She
supposed it was possible for a person to be charged, if,
perhaps a person let their dog out on a busy street during
rush hour in Anchorage.
Representative Neuman wondered how criminal intent was
proven. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it was based on a
person's responses, behavior, and other factors. She noted
that a maximum fine for a class C felony was $50,000.
Representative Neuman asked if the court would determine
criminal negligence.
10:14:53 AM
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she had already reported how
the courts determined criminal negligence according to
statute. She furthered that in a case of animal cruelty the
court may look at factors related to failure to feed an
animal, resources available, what the person was doing at
the time. The department was ethically bound to the
requirement to prove negligence.
Representative Neuman asked for the definition of an
animal. Ms. Carpeneti replied that an animal was defined as
an vertebrate that was not a fish.
Representative Neuman asked where trapping fell into the
law. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the animal cruelty
statute excluded hunting and conduct that was necessarily
incidental to lawful fishing, hunting, dog mushing, or
trapping activities.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the practice of dog mushing
and how it fell under the law. Ms. Carpeneti replied that
the animal cruelty prohibition statute did not apply to
generally accepted dog mushing, pulling contests, rodeos,
or stock contests.
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to Bill Maher and remarks made
about dog mushing.
10:18:44 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked how the proposal was consistent
with other parts of state statute related to domestic
violence, sex trafficking, or child abuse. Ms. Carpeneti
responded that the animal cruelty crime would be a class C
felony. She furthered that third degree assault was a class
C felony. She remarked that most domestic violence assaults
were resolved at a class A misdemeanor, fourth degree
assault level.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked what other types of crimes
qualified as a class C felony. Ms. Carpeneti replied that
example of class C felonies were as follows: assault in the
third degree; theft of $500 or more; larceny; and
possession of many serious drugs.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that at some point it was
necessary to change the way things were done. She wondered
why it was not possible to take the animals away from a
person for neglect or abuse. She believed it had to do with
the due process and the time it took to prosecute. She
asked if there was a different way to solve the problem.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the law did allow for an
animal to be forfeited, and the person was required to pay
for the care of the animal. She furthered that it was a
class A misdemeanor to fail to care for an animal, under
criminal negligence. The law specifically required that
each animal be considered separate.
10:24:19 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether there was a
different way to solve the problem. Ms. Carpeneti added
that another provision in statute provided that there were
currently some tools available.
Representative Edgmon asked whether shooting an animal
would be a misdemeanor. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it would
be no crime at all, as long as prolonged suffering was not
inflicted.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the definition of a
musher. Ms. Carpeneti replied that there was no definition
of musher in criminal law.
Ms. Sica pointed to a minimum standard of care in state
law, which included reasonable medical attention. He noted
that Doug Gardner was available to answer additional
questions.
10:28:06 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 179 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 245 Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Sectional Letterhead.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Background Info.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 FVCS House Finance Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 301 CS WORKDRAFT FIN-3.14.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB301 Restrictions.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB179 Law Chart.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| HB179 Letter Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2012 8:30:00 AM |
HB 179 |