Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
Vote required
Majority
Fiscal committee
No
Appropriation
No
Current location
Appropriations
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to take a stance, submit a written position, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill changes how California determines if a dog is ‘potentially dangerous or vicious’ and how it’s handled. Currently, a court decides based on a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This bill requires courts to use ‘clear and convincing evidence’ and mandates specific factual findings to support any determination of danger or viciousness, including whether the dog was provoked. It also prohibits ending a dog’s life solely based on public health and safety concerns without sufficient evidence and clarifies that provocation should be considered when regulating a dog’s risk. Finally, it requires local dog control programs to use the same evidentiary standards as courts when considering orders that could lead to a dog’s euthanasia.
Key provisions
- Requires courts to use ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to determine if a dog is vicious or potentially dangerous.
- Mandates explicit factual findings to support any determination of danger or viciousness, including whether the dog was provoked.
- Defines ‘provoke’ and ‘unprovoked’ for the purposes of these regulations.
- Prohibits ending a dog’s life solely for public health and safety reasons without sufficient evidence.
- Requires local dog control programs to use ‘clear and convincing evidence’ in hearings that could result in an order of death.
- States that provocation must be a factor when regulating a dog’s risk to public health, safety, and welfare.
- Clarifies that a dog cannot be declared dangerous or vicious if it was injured while committing a willful trespass or being provoked.
- Requires programs regulating potentially dangerous dogs to apply the same evidentiary standards as courts when considering orders that could lead to a dog’s euthanasia.
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours