Senate Judiciary debates tighter deadlines, security rules and fund changes in animal forfeiture bill

The Senate Judiciary committee on April 16 reviewed proposed edits to an animal forfeiture bill that would shorten several court deadlines, tighten payment rules for seized animals and clarify how custodial caretakers get reimbursed.

Staff member summarized language on page 19 that currently gives an owner 14 days after seizure to request a forfeiture hearing and directs a court to hold that hearing within 30 days; the committee considered a suggested amendment to remove the bill’s allowance for the court to extend the 30‑day deadline for "good cause." A committee member urged the hard limit, arguing extended delays increase costs and "the damage to the animals" while they remain impounded.

Lisa Millett, director of animal welfare, testified that the animal welfare fund is small and relies mainly on a $2 per‑dog license fee surcharge—about $30,000 a year—and said most defendants will likely apply for financial‑hardship waivers that would reduce posted security. "The animal welfare fund will only disperse amounts for any given animal up to the security amount paid," Millett said, and she described Senator Williams’ proposed amendment to add a surcharge (about $50 per offense) to boost the fund.

Staff reviewed the bill’s posting requirement in subdivision 3(b): an owner who requests a hearing must post initial security within 14 days to cover an initial 40‑day care period, with additional 30‑day increments if needed. Committee members recommended clarifying language (inserting the word "initial") so it is clear when the payment timeline starts. Members also discussed adding a sentence that "failure to pay such amount when due shall result in forfeiture of title to the animal," with an explicit carve‑out that a financial‑hardship waiver request or grant would prevent automatic forfeiture.

Committee members and witnesses debated whether security deadlines should be counted from seizure (the draft's approach) rather than tied to the court's scheduled hearing, with staff noting seizure‑based timing gives owners and caretakers predictable windows. Witnesses gave ballpark cost examples to show the range of potential expense: "For a horse, it might be $20,000. For a dog, it might be a $100," a witness said, illustrating why caretakers and rescues can face large, unreimbursed bills.

The committee also considered edits to court procedure language. One suggested technical change would replace the requirement that a court issue findings and a final order "promptly" with a specific seven‑day deadline to produce a written order; members expressed skepticism about whether such a short timeline is feasible and asked for judicial input. On appeals, staff described a draft that would require notice of appeal within seven days, an appeal hearing within 14 days of filing, and the appellate court to issue a final decision within seven days of the hearing. The draft would also require appellants to post security to cover care during appeal (an initial 40‑day amount), and include the same nonpayment/forfeiture language (subject to financial‑hardship waiver).

Members did not adopt final language at the session. They agreed to seek testimony from a judge about the practical effect of strict court deadlines and to return to the bill next week; staff said they would circulate a reference draft before the next meeting. The committee also noted Senator Williams’ surcharge proposal as a separate item to consider in more detail at a future date.

The panel adjourned discussion of these edits without taking votes; further committee consideration and witness testimony were requested before finalizing any changes.