Bill > A129

Introduced Session

This bill would: (1) authorize certain law enforcement officials to take custody of animals in cases of suspected animal cruelty violations; and (2) establish various provisions related to the payment of the cost of care of animals taken into custody. Specifically, the bill would: (1) provide that a court of competent jurisdiction may issue a warrant concerning a violation of P.L.2017, c.189 after receiving proof of issuance of a written correction warning pursuant to subsection f. of section 5 of P.L.2017, c.189 (C.4:22-17.7), rather than proof of issuance of a summons; (2) provide that a court of competent jurisdiction may issue a warrant concerning a violation of P.L.2017, c.189 without receiving the proof of issuance described above, whenever immediate assistance is required to protect an animal; (3) specify that the notice required pursuant to subsection c. of section 5 of P.L.2017, c.189 (C.4:22-17.7): (a) must be sent no later than seven days after an animal has been taken into custody; (b) must be sent to the owner as well as the address from which the animal was taken; and (c) need not contain information concerning the alleged violation that led to the confiscation of the animal; and (4) provide that a licensed shelter, pound, or kennel operating as a shelter or pound, which has custody or control of a dog, domestic companion animal, or service animal, because of an alleged violation of P.L.2017, c.189, may provide care to improve the animal's physical or psychological well-being. In addition, the bill would authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to issue a warrant to any municipal humane law enforcement officer, humane law enforcement officer of a county society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other State or local law enforcement officer to enter onto the private property where an animal is located and take custody of the animal, upon a showing that there was a reasonable basis to believe that there has been an animal cruelty violation. In cases where an officer has a reasonable basis to believe that, due to an animal cruelty violation, immediate assistance is required, the officer would be authorized to enter a private property and take custody of an animal without a warrant. The bill would require animals taken into custody in the manner described above to be placed in the care of a licensed shelter, pound, or kennel operating as a shelter or pound. The bill would authorize these facilities to provide care to improve the animal's physical or psychological well-being, or to transfer the animal in an animal rescue organization facility or a foster home, provided the licensed shelter, pound, or kennel operating as a shelter or pound determines that such placement or care: (1) is in the best interests of the animal; (2) would not incur additional and unreasonable costs of care; and (3) would not permit euthanasia except if a licensed veterinarian makes a written determination that the animal is in intractable and extreme pain and beyond any reasonable hope of recovery with reasonable veterinary medical treatment. The bill would authorize an animal care facility (as defined by the bill) that receives and cares for an animal taken into custody in the manner described above to file a complaint in the Superior Court seeking payment of the reasonable costs of care provided to the animal. The bill would establish various requirements for the form and content of the complaint. If an animal care facility demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, that an animal was taken into custody either for the animal's protection from harm or for needed medical attention, and that the complaint was served in the correct manner, the bill would direct the court to award damages for the reasonable costs of care for the animal for the period that the animal is in the custody of the animal care facility. If the court determines that the animal care facility has not established these facts by a preponderance of evidence, no damages would be awarded, but the animal would be retained by the animal care facility until the outcome of the animal cruelty proceeding that led to the animal's seizure. If the court determines that a complaint was not filed in the correct manner, the animal would be retained by the animal care facility, which could petition the court for a 30-day extension to refile the complaint. The bill establishes various requirements concerning the way in which damages for the reasonable costs of care for an animal are to be paid. If a person fails to make a payment, as required by the bill, ownership of the animal would transfer to the animal care facility. The bill would provide that, if a person liable for the reasonable costs of care under the bill is found to be not guilty of the alleged criminal animal cruelty offense or is found not liable for civil penalties for an animal cruelty violation that led to the seizure of the animal, and if the person has made timely payments for the reasonable costs of care, the person would be authorized to immediately repossess the person's animal and to be reimbursed by the animal care facility for all of the reasonable costs of care, except those related to necessary veterinary care, that were paid by the person to the animal care facility. However, the bill also provides that, if the person contests the necessity of veterinary care provided as necessary veterinary care, the person may request reimbursement of veterinary care costs that the person believes was not necessary veterinary care, and the animal care facility will be required to reimburse the contested costs if it cannot document the veterinary care was so necessary. The bill defines "necessary veterinary care" as veterinary care to prevent the imminent death of an animal, alleviate extreme pain for the animal, treat disease, provide basic, general care for the health and welfare of the animal, and administer euthanasia and properly dispose of animal remains, as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian. It includes the administration of medicine and vaccinations, but excludes surgical intervention, except if such intervention is emergent to prevent imminent death, extreme pain, or loss of the animal's body functions. "Necessary veterinary care" would also not include surgical intervention for elective surgeries or surgeries for the general health care of the animal, or extreme health care measures or invasive procedures not required to prevent the imminent death of the animal. Finally, the bill would authorize animal care facilities and enforcement agencies (as defined by the bill) to petition a court presiding over an animal cruelty proceeding for an order requiring the forfeiture of the animal involved in animal cruelty offense to an animal care facility. The court would also be authorized to order that the person convicted of an animal cruelty violation and any person who was convicted for conspiring, aiding, or abetting in the violation that was the basis of the conviction, be prohibited from owning, harboring, or having custody or control of any other animals for a period of time that the court deems appropriate. The bill would also authorize the court to issue an order as described above upon its own initiative.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Clinton Calabrese (D)*,  Aura Dunn (R)*,  Don Guardian (R)*, 

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee (on 01/09/2024)

Official Document