Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects amendment broadening defenses in animal-cruelty statute after debate on police-dog incidents
Summary
Senate Bill 11-98, which would have added a necessity defense for people who use force when mistakenly attacked by police dogs, failed a third-reading vote in the Arizona Senate.
Senate Bill 11-98, a measure amending sections of Arizona law related to animal cruelty, failed to pass on third reading after extended floor debate about self-defense and a necessity defense when police dogs attack people.
Senator John Kavanaugh offered an amendment after consulting with civil-rights and criminal-defense stakeholders. He said current law created a narrow situation in which a person who defends themselves against an unprovoked police-dog attack could be charged with a felony for attacking the animal, with "0 defense" available in some cases. "This bill applies the necessity defense," Kavanaugh said, arguing it would allow people to raise a traditional necessity defense when force was used to prevent a greater harm.
Some senators said the amendment did not go far enough to cover all self-defense nuances in criminal cases; others expressed concern that the amendment could have unintended consequences in police operations. A senator who explained a "no" vote said the floor amendment "didn't do enough to really encompass self defense."
On the third-reading roll call the Senate recorded 15 ayes, 12 nays, 2 not voting and 1 vacancy; the bill failed to pass.
Supporters described the amendment as a targeted fix to allow people attacked by police dogs without cause to assert necessity; opponents said the language needed broader justification defenses or further clarification from counsel before it should become law.
