Lisa Mylott urges faster seizures and stronger post‑seizure rules in H.578

Lisa Mylott, director of animal welfare at the Vermont Department of Public Safety, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that H.578 aims to modernize animal‑cruelty law and speed the process that follows an animal seizure so victims can be rehomed sooner.

Mylott told the committee that Vermont lacks municipal shelters and that private rescues often cannot absorb animals seized in cruelty investigations. "Vermont does not have municipal shelters," she said, adding that many rescue groups now decline seizure cases because long holding periods impose unsustainable costs and stress on animals. She cited recent large seizures that exceeded statewide shelter capacity and said expediting post‑seizure decisions reduces animal suffering and the fiscal burden on private organizations.

The bill would tackle several areas Mylott outlined: clarifying substantive cruelty definitions, strengthening sentencing remedies that bar offenders from possessing animals, tightening the timetable for post‑seizure hearings, and refining search‑and‑seizure provisions. On timing, Mylott said the committee should start the owner‑hearing deadline from seizure and require an owner to request a hearing within 14 days of seizure "or they lose title," a change she framed as necessary to avoid months of confinement while normal civil notice procedures run their course.

Mylott recommended a practical notice regime to protect owners' due process: personal service when an owner is present plus a "tack and mail" (post and mail) approach with reasonable attempts within the first 96 hours, modeled on a Minnesota statute she cited. She said that approach, combined with a 10‑day request window, had withstood previous due‑process challenges in that state.

On operational rules, Mylott proposed softening mandatory consultation and vet‑accompaniment language. She recommended replacing an absolute requirement to consult the Secretary of Agriculture in livestock cases with a "where practicable" standard so law enforcement can act when animal‑husbandry practices are not implicated. She made a similar point about veterinarians accompanying humane officers during warrant execution: the draft moves the requirement from an absolute "must" to a practicable standard and, Mylott said, courts have recognized that absence of a vet should not automatically bar enforcement or exclude evidence in all cases.

Mylott said case law (she cited the Vermont Supreme Court and a case she referred to as State v. Ferguson) treats animals as a distinct category and that courts have allowed evidence of severe neglect even when some evidence predated a search‑warrant application. She said she would provide the committee with the precise citations and draft language.

She also flagged drafting gaps: the bill requires owners to post security or pay custodial costs but does not state what happens to an animal or excess costs if an owner fails to pay. Other states, she said, typically allow loss of title for nonpayment (analogous to vehicle impound rules), and Vermont should decide whether to adopt a similar approach.

Mylott told the committee she will provide written language and case‑law references and expects to return for a markup session. The committee thanked her and signaled follow‑up questions in the next meeting.

Closing: The Judiciary committee took testimony and committed to drafting and circulating specific statutory language and cited cases before markup; no formal vote occurred during the hearing.