Vermont House Judiciary hears expert concerns on H.578 over mandatory sentences, service rules and court oversight

Montpelier — The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday continued testimony on H.578, a bill that would broaden Vermonts animal cruelty laws, impose new post-conviction possession limits and create a procedure to require owners to post funds to cover the housing and care of seized animals.

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonne told the panel he had reviewed the bill section by section and raised multiple practical concerns. "When you take a may to a shall for sentencing, you are creating a one-size-fits-all model," Zonne said, arguing the change would remove discretion that prosecutors, defense counsel and judges now rely on to fashion individualized sentences. He warned that mandatory sentencing elements could preclude plea stipulations that currently enable case resolutions.

Zonne also urged the committee to move civil forfeiture and the new "cost-of-care" action into the civil division rather than the criminal division, saying the civil division is better equipped to manage drawn-out proceedings and that the criminal docket is already burdened. He flagged service provisions in the bill that limit service of process to "humane officers," saying the restriction could prevent ordinary law-enforcement officers from serving papers in areas without a humane officer on duty and risk improper notice.

"If the officer is unable to personally serve the process, they basically can just post it on the door," Zonne said, calling that approach inconsistent with civil procedural protections and potentially depriving defendants of due process. He recommended referencing existing civil-service rules while allowing humane officers to serve when appropriate.

Lisa Millett, director of the Division of Animal Welfare in the Department of Public Safety, described operational problems shelters and rescues face when animals are seized and held for months. Millett said the bills bond and cost-of-care pathways could lead to different and unintended outcomes: owners who can pay may keep title to animals and thereby require shelters to continue holding them, while the civil forfeiture route strips title but is more procedurally complex.

Millett outlined three models other states use to speed disposition: a Minnesota-style automatic 10-day default that forfeits title unless the owner files a hearing request and posts costs; a Texas-like model in which the court sets a hearing within 10 days of seizure; and a centralized approach assigning specialized prosecutors or a single court to these matters to reduce delay and improve expertise. "These cases are not ton of them, but they do take expertise," Millett said, urging tailored procedural choices.

Merrimack Farm Sanctuary founder Ira McDonald told the committee his group spent nearly $9,000 caring for two pigs seized in March 2025 while the criminal case stretched for months. "Were happy Gladys and Olivia are safe," McDonald said, "but the state of Vermont will have to work on how we handle cases like this one." He urged clearer funding and reimbursement pathways for custodial caregivers.

Committee members asked whether the bill should require fixed hearing deadlines or allow flexible language such as "as promptly as possible." Zonne recommended keeping promptness flexible because rigid deadlines can create scheduling conflicts and could displace other time-sensitive matters unless the Legislature also allocates more court time.

Millett recommended changes to several drafting details: consider moving actions to the civil docket, add oversight and accounting requirements for registry disbursements (including receipt or affidavit requirements for payments), re-evaluate a high civil "clear and convincing" evidence standard in forfeiture proceedings and ensure immunity language tracks existing statutory provisions to avoid ambiguity.

Neither the Department of Public Safety nor the administration had taken a formal position; Commissioner Jennifer Morrison said department staff had not yet reviewed the bill and offered to provide written comments.

The committee did not vote Wednesday. Members requested written testimony and said they will continue refining statutory language to address due-process, court workload, oversight of funds, custody standards and holding-time reforms. The panel adjourned until its next scheduled meeting.

The committee asked witnesses to submit written comments and signaled further drafting work will follow; no formal action on H.578 was taken at this session.