Bill Text: CA AB793 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
Sponsorship: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Engrossed) 2025-08-29 - In committee: Held under submission. [AB793 Detail]
Download: California-2025-AB793-Amended.html
|
Amended
IN
Senate
July 17, 2025 |
|
Amended
IN
Senate
June 10, 2025 |
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
April 09, 2025 |
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 19, 2025 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 793
| Introduced by Assembly Member Schultz (Coauthor: Assembly Member Alanis) |
February 18, 2025 |
An act to amend Sections 31601, 31609, 31621, 31622, 31626, 31645, and 31683 of, to add Sections 31601.5, 31601.11, 31601.13, 31601.15, and 31622.5 to, and to add Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650) to Chapter 9 of Division 14 of, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to dogs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 793, as amended, Schultz.
Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the
evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines “potentially dangerous dog” and “vicious dog” as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.
This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit
factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked. The bill would define the terms term “provoke” and “unprovoked” for purposes of these provisions.
The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing
evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings.
The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified.
(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as
specified.
(3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.
This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare.
(4) This bill would provide that the
above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies.
(5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NOBill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31601.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs can pose a serious threat to the safety and welfare of residents of this state. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem that requires statewide regulation.
(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. Regulating dog ownership is an important tool for improving public health, safety, and welfare.
(3)Although dogs are legally classified as the property of their owners, societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has moved toward viewing them as members of families. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs greatly exceed measurement in monetary terms.
(4)Dog owners
(3) Dogs in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not unnecessarily lose their lives when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, while promoting responsible ownership and without unnecessarily ending dogs’ lives. As a matter of both protecting constitutional property rights and respecting the status of dogs as family members, government should use the least destructive means necessary to mitigate
risk to public health, safety, and welfare. ownership.
SEC. 2.
Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.5.
Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.SEC. 3.
Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.11.
(b)“Provocation” includes any of the following circumstances:
(1)The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault.
(2)The dog was responding to pain or injury.
(3)The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home.
(4)The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog.
(5)The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
“Public health, safety, and welfare” includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
“Unprovoked” means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances described in Section 31602, 31603, or 31601.11.
SEC. 6.SEC. 4.
Section 31609 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31609.
(a) This chapter does not apply to licensed kennels, humane society shelters, animal control facilities, or veterinarians.(b) This chapter does not apply to dogs while utilized by any police department or any law enforcement officer in the performance of police work.
(c) This chapter shall apply only to a governmental or judicial proceeding to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by an individual dog and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from an alleged injury to a human or animal or damage to
property.
SEC. 7.SEC. 5.
Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31621.
If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officer’s immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency head’s designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than 5 working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous, and shall apply the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof to find whether the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall makeSEC. 8.SEC. 6.
Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31622.
(a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo,
without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit
factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the court’s determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
SEC. 9.SEC. 7.
Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31622.5.
(a) Any order issued pursuant to this article to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met, and shall include(1) That the dog was not provoked.
(2) That reasonable, humane terms and conditions would not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare.
(3) That the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(4)That the dog cannot be safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction.
(b) A dog’s life dog may not be ended euthanized for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.
SEC. 10.SEC. 8.
Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31626.
(a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal that at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
SEC. 11.SEC. 9.
Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31645.
(a)(b) If it is determined that the life of a dog found to be vicious shall not be ended, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
SEC. 12.SEC. 10.
Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650) is added to Chapter 9 of Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:Article 3.5. Regulation of Provoked Dogs
31650.
(a) Provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare. Depending on the nature of the provocation, reasonableness of the dog’s response, and reasonable prediction of the degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare the dog poses, options shall include any of the following:(1) Dismissal of the complaint without further action.
(2) Imposition of reasonable, humane conditions of ownership when doing so is necessary to mitigate risk of further incidents.
(3) Humanely ending the dog’s life Euthanizing
the dog by the local governmental
agency or by the owner’s veterinarian if it is determined by clear and convincing evidence, and reported in explicit factual findings, that all of the following are satisfied:
(A) The provoked dog, in an aggressive manner, inflicted severe injury, as defined in Section 31604, which was significantly disproportionate to the provocative stimulus.
(B) Release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(C) The risk to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be addressed adequately by an order of
reasonable, humane terms and conditions of ownership imposed on an owner.
(D)A feasible alternative does not exist for the dog to live safely inside or outside the jurisdiction.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), a dog may not be regulated with terms and conditions, and a dog’s life may not be ended, if the dog is found to have engaged in any of the conduct under the circumstances described in Section 31626.
(c)Severity of an injury is not determinative of whether a dog was provoked or whether the release of the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
(d)Testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, board-certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert shall be relevant to a determination whether a dog’s behavior was provoked and the scope of regulating the dog, if regulation is considered. That testimony shall still meet other standards for admission, such as credibility and authenticity.
(e)The life of a
(c) A dog that was provoked may not be ended euthanized for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.
SEC. 13.SEC. 11.
Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31683.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) In any administrative hearing or limited
civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare such that it should be placed in a category that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare, a program described in subdivision (a) shall require at least all of the following:
(i) The application of the definition and provisions pertaining to provocation set forth in Section 31601.11 and Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650).
(ii) The application of the clear and convincing standard of proof.
(iii) Explicit Factual
findings regarding each requirement for placement in that category showing that each of those requirements has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked.
(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the hearing entity to indicate, on the record, the jurisdiction’s standard rule of evidentiary proof of either preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence it applies to find whether a dog may be placed in a category that could or will result in the imposition of terms and conditions of ownership of the dog but not in a category that could or will result in an order
of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
(D) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same evidentiary burden of proof that was used in the hearing on original jurisdiction to be used for a hearing on appeal.
(E) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for
ending
the life of to euthanize a dog for public health, safety, and welfare reasons unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case that the requirements applicable to issuing an order pursuant to Section 31622.5 or the requirements of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650), as applicable, are satisfied.
(F) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize a dog’s life to be ended for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.
(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or
potentially posing a significant threat to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. This subdivision applies to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
