Ways & Means panel backs bill expanding animal-cruelty penalties and requiring upfront security for seized animals
Loading...
Summary
A Ways & Means committee voted 11-0 to report a bill that expands criminal and civil penalties for animal cruelty and requires people whose animals are seized to post an upfront security to cover care costs; the Joint Fiscal Office said no fiscal note could be estimated.
A Ways & Means committee on the bill voted to report H 5 78 favorable after hearing that the measure would broaden the conduct covered by misdemeanor and felony aggravated animal-cruelty statutes, expand civil sanctions judges can impose on conviction, and require an upfront security when an animal is seized.
Unidentified Speaker 1, who summarized the bill at the meeting’s start, said the proposal has three main parts: expanding the types of conduct that fall under criminal prohibitions; creating additional court-imposed sanctions — such as forfeiture of the animal, future possession bans and consent to periodic unannounced inspections by the Division of Animal Welfare — and revising seizure and forfeiture procedures so courts can require a security be posted when an animal is taken into custody. "It expands the type of conduct that comes under the criminal prohibitions," the speaker said. "The bill...is to require a security be paid upfront by the person whose animal has been seized."
The bill directs the court to take the security and transmit it to the Division of Animal Welfare in the Department of Public Safety. That agency could distribute the money to humane societies or custody organizations holding the animal to offset immediate costs for housing, food and veterinary care, rather than having those organizations wait months for a final forfeiture order.
Chris, speaking for the fiscal/administrative office, told the committee there is no fiscal note for the bill because it is "really impossible for us to quantify a fiscal impact for this." He described the change as setting up a structure — the collection and remittance of securities and subsequent rulemaking — without reliable data on how frequently seizures and forfeiture proceedings will occur.
Committee members asked how the security would be posted and confirmed the understanding was that the security would be cash rather than a performance bond or credit instrument. The transcript records the committee’s confirmation: "I think the understanding was that it would be cash," and later, "Cash? I mean, money."
After the presentation and brief questions the committee considered a motion to find the bill favorable. Representative Kimball moved the bill be found favorable; Representative Sandlin seconded. The clerk called the roll and the measure was recorded favorable by voice/roll call, 11-0-0.
The committee recorded who would report the bill and closed the session, noting logistical items and the next meeting time.
