NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
Thompson |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
CS/19/aHFl#1 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Companion Animal Hoarding |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Fox-Young |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.1 Minimal |
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses
Received From
Public Defender Department (PDD)
Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
Administrative
Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Department
of Public Safety (DPS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Floor Amendment
Synopsis of Bill
The
House Judiciary Committee Substitute for House Bill 19
creates the crime of companion animal hoarding.
Whoever commits companion animal hoarding is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
“Companion
animal” means a domesticated animal, excluding fish, that
a reasonable person would consider a pet or that is considered by the owner to
be a pet.
Companion animal hoarding consists of a
person:
·
Possessing over fifteen companion
animals;
·
Failing to provide necessary nutrition to
the companion animals;
·
Failing to shelter the companion animals
in a sanitary environment;
·
Failing to provide necessary veterinary
care to the companion animals; and
·
Displaying a disregard for the conditions
under which the companion animals are living.
Upon
a conviction for companion animal hoarding, the court may order that the
offender is precluded from owning, harboring or having custody or control of
companion animals.
A
new section of the Criminal Code is enacted to allow peace officers and animal
control officers to apply to the court for a warrant to seize the companion
animal(s) when they believe that the life or health of companion animals are
endangered due to companion animal hoarding.
If the court finds probable cause that companion animal hoarding is
occurring, the court shall issue a warrant for seizure of the animals. The court shall schedule a hearing on the
matter as expeditiously as possible within ten days unless good cause is
demonstrated by the state for a hearing at a later time. The court may authorize individuals to care
for, treat and attempt to restore the health of the companion animals. The bill further details the legal process to
be followed in such cases.
Significant
Issues
This bill does
not apply to work animals or service animals.
The Attorney General (AG) reports that the elements of the crime as described in § 1B of the legislation require the state to prove, in addition to possessing over fifteen animals, that the owner has failed to provide nutrition, failed to shelter the animals in a sanitary environment, failed to provide veterinary care, and displayed a disregard for conditions. Due to the large number of elements, particularly failing to provide necessary veterinary care, these will not simple cases to investigate and prosecute. The existing crime of cruelty to animals, § 30-18-1 is more general in scope.
AOC notes that the
requirement that hearings be held within ten days will have a significant impact
on court scheduling.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Courts
will likely experience increases in workload due to increases in case
processing time and in tracking cases to completion of counseling and other
conditions of release.
There will likely be an additional fiscal impact to the courts and to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) associated with peace officers and animal control officers applying for warrants to seize companion animals.
Depending on the number of court mandated visits by peace officers to individuals charged with companion animal hoarding, DPS could experience increases in workload.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
AG suggests striking
“prudent” and inserting “reasonable,” in the following language. (AG indicates
that the standard normally used in such situations is “reasonable cause.)
“The court may
order publication of the notice of the hearing in a newspaper closest to the
location of the seizure if the person charged cannot be found with prudent effort.” (Section 2, paragraph C)
AG recommends
inserting “designated” after the phrase “the court may authorize…” (Section 2,
paragraph E)
AG recommends striking “articulates probable cause” and inserting “has
reasonable cause to believe” (Section 2, paragraph E). AG notes that reasonable cause is the
standard normally used in seeking a warrant, and it is also consistent with the
language in Section 2, paragraph A.
AG recommends inserting the citation for the Forfeiture Act, NMSA 1978, § 31-27-1 to 31-27-8 (2002), following the reference to the Act. (Section 4)