Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: notice of owner’s or keeper’s rights.
Vote required
Majority
Fiscal committee
No
Appropriation
No
Current location
Appropriations
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, 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 updates California law regarding dogs deemed potentially dangerous or vicious. It requires cities and counties to follow a specific court process – including a hearing, notification to the owner, and an appeal – when determining if a dog should be classified as such, rather than allowing them to create their own, potentially less protective, procedures. The bill also mandates that courts post hearing notices online, admit relevant evidence, and limit discovery to prevent unnecessary delays, and requires law enforcement to provide owners with a notice of rights when a dog is seized.
Key provisions
- Requires cities and counties to follow a standardized court process for determining if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious.
- Mandates that courts post public hearing notices on their websites.
- Authorizes courts to limit discovery and shorten timelines to prevent delays.
- Requires law enforcement to provide owners with a notice of rights when a dog is seized and impounded.
- Specifies the content of the notice of rights, including information about the hearing process and the owner’s rights.
- Requires retention of documentation related to the notice of rights for six months.
- Repeals a previous section regarding the finality of court determinations.
- Clarifies that the court hearing the appeal must conduct a de novo review.
Who is affected
- Dog owners and keepers
- Local law enforcement agencies
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
1 on record
Primary sponsor
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