AB793: Bill Text

LRB-4273/1

RCT:cjs&kjf:rs

2009 - 2010 LEGISLATURE

2009 Assembly BILL 793

March 2, 2010 - Introduced by Representatives Pocan, Berceau, Black, Brooks, Hebl, Pasch and Pope-Roberts, cosponsored by Senators Risser, Carpenter, Erpenbach and Miller. Referred to Committee on Corrections and the Courts.

AB793,1,10 An Act to repeal 173.12 (1m) to (3), 173.13 (1) (a) 7., 173.24 (1) and 951.18 (4) (b) 2.; to renumber 173.12 (1) and 173.17; to renumber and amend 173.22 (2), 173.23 (3) (c) and 951.18 (4) (b) 1.; to amend 173.12 (title), 173.13 (1) (a) 8., 173.15 (2) (b), 173.21 (1) (a), 173.21 (4), 173.22 (1), 173.22 (3) (a) 1., 173.23 (2), 173.23 (3) (a), 173.23 (3) (d), 173.23 (3) (e), 173.23 (5) (b) and (c), 173.23 (6), 173.24 (3), 174.13 (3), 968.19, 968.20 (1) (intro.) and 968.20 (2); and to create 173.01 (4), 173.17 (2), 173.22 (2) (b), 173.23 (1) (e), 173.23 (3) (a) 2m., 173.23 (3) (a) 4., 173.23 (3) (c) 2., 173.23 (3) (dm), 173.23 (3) (f), 173.23 (3) (g), 173.23 (3) (h), 173.23 (3) (i) and 951.17 of the statutes; relating to: animals taken into custody.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill changes the laws related to animals that are taken into custody on behalf of a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision).

Seizure and withholding of animals

Current law authorizes a humane officer or law enforcement officer to take custody of an animal on behalf of a political subdivision for a number of reasons, including that the animal is a stray or that the humane officer or law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal has been involved in animal fighting or has been mistreated in violation of state law. Under current law, a political subdivision may contract with another person (contractor), such as a humane society, to provide custody and care of animals taken into custody on behalf of the political subdivision.

Under current law, an animal taken into custody must generally be returned to its owner if the owner provides reasonable evidence of ownership, provides for any required licensure and vaccination of the animal, and pays the costs of custody and care of the animal. Under this bill, an owner who wishes to obtain the return of an animal in custody must also arrange to have a microchip implanted in the animal for identification.

Current law authorizes a political subdivision to withhold an animal from its owner if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the owner has mistreated the animal in violation of state law; there are reasonable grounds to believe that the animal poses a significant threat to public health, safety or welfare; the animal may be used as evidence in a pending prosecution; or a court has ordered the animal withheld for any reason.

If an animal is taken into custody because the animal is alleged to have been involved in fighting, current law requires the animal to be kept in custody pending the resolution of criminal charges relating to the alleged animal fighting. This bill eliminates the provision requiring an animal alleged to have been involved in fighting to be maintained in custody pending the outcome of the charges. Under this bill, the provisions relating to an animal in custody that is believed to have been involved in animal fighting are the same as those relating to an animal believed to have been mistreated in violation of state law.

Petitions seeking return of animals in custody

Under current law, a person claiming that an animal that he or she owns was improperly taken into custody or withheld by or on behalf of a political subdivision may petition a court to order the return of the animal. The court must order the animal returned to the owner unless the court makes one of several specified determinations. One basis for denying a petition is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the owner has mistreated the animal in violation of state law.

Under this bill, the owner of an animal must file a petition for return of the animal no later than the seventh day after the day on which the animal was taken into custody. The bill requires the owner to serve a copy of the petition on the contractor with custody of the animal as well as on the political subdivision. This bill generally requires the court to hold a hearing on the issue of whether the animal was improperly taken into custody or withheld within 10 days of the filing of the petition.

Other petitions concerning animals in custody

Under current law, a political subdivision may petition a court for an order with respect to an animal taken into custody or withheld from the owner. The political subdivision must notify the owner of the animal when it files a petition. In a petition, a political subdivision may ask the court to provide for payment for the custody and care for the animal, to require the owner to post bond for the costs of custody and care for the animal pending the outcome of another court proceeding (such as a criminal case related to the animal), or to authorize the sale, destruction, or other disposal of the animal. The court may grant, modify, or deny petitioned-for relief, after considering the interests of the animal, the owner of the animal, the political subdivision, and the public. If an owner does not comply with an order directed to the owner, the animal is treated as an unclaimed animal, which means that the entity with custody of the animal may dispose of the animal by, for example, releasing it to another person.

This bill allows a contractor with custody of an animal, in addition to a political subdivision, to petition a court for an order with respect to the animal. The bill requires the contractor to notify the owner and the political subdivision when it petitions the court for an order with respect to the animal and to notify the district attorney if it is alleged that the animal was mistreated in violation of state law or was involved in animal fighting. The bill requires a political subdivision to notify a contractor with custody of an animal, in addition to the owner, when it petitions a court for an order with respect to the animal and to notify the district attorney if it is alleged that the animal was mistreated in violation of state law or was involved in animal fighting.

The bill authorizes a political subdivision or contractor that petitions the court for an order with respect to an animal to ask the court to require the owner of the animal to pay funds into the court for the costs of custody and care for the animal pending the outcome of another court proceeding. If the court requires the owner of the animal to pay funds into the court, funds must be periodically disbursed to the person with custody to cover the person's reasonable costs. If the owner does not comply with an order, the animal is treated as an unclaimed animal. The bill also authorizes a political subdivision or contractor to petition a court to release an animal to its owner pending the outcome of another court proceeding, but only if the owner is not alleged to have mistreated the animal in violation of state law or to have violated the law prohibiting animal fighting and only if other specified conditions are satisfied.

The bill generally requires the court to hold a hearing on a petition filed by a political subdivision or contractor within 10 days of the filing of the petition.

Order by criminal court

Under this bill, if there is a case charging mistreatment of an animal in violation of state law or violation of the laws relating to animal fighting and an animal allegedly involved in the violation is in custody under the civil laws described above, the defendant or the district attorney may request the criminal court to order that the animal be retained in custody for a period that is reasonable to allow the collection of evidence relating to the animal. The bill requires the criminal court to provide a copy of such an order to the person with custody of the animal and to any court in which a case is pending under the civil laws described above.

The bill requires a person with custody of an animal and any court in which a case is pending under the civil laws described above to ensure that the animal remains in custody until the end of the period specified in the criminal court's order. The ultimate disposition of the animal after the period specified in the order is determined under the civil laws described above.

For further information see the local fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

AB793, s. 1 Section 1. 173.01 (4) of the statutes is created to read:

AB793,4,4 173.01 (4) "Reasonable grounds to believe" means a set of facts and circumstances that in their entirety are sufficient to justify a reasonable person's belief.

AB793, s. 2 Section 2. 173.12 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,4,6 173.12 (title) Animal fighting; seizure reporting.

AB793, s. 3 Section 3. 173.12 (1) of the statutes is renumbered 173.12.

AB793, s. 4 Section 4. 173.12 (1m) to (3) of the statutes are repealed.

AB793, s. 5 Section 5. 173.13 (1) (a) 7. of the statutes is repealed.

AB793, s. 6 Section 6. 173.13 (1) (a) 8. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,4,12 173.13 (1) (a) 8. An animal mistreated in violation of ch. 951 or involved in a violation of s. 951.08.

AB793, s. 7 Section 7. 173.15 (2) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,4,14 173.15 (2) (b) Maintain adequate records consistent with s. 173.17 (1).

AB793, s. 8 Section 8. 173.17 of the statutes is renumbered 173.17 (1).

AB793, s. 9 Section 9. 173.17 (2) of the statutes is created to read:

AB793,5,2 173.17 (2) A humane officer, law enforcement officer, political subdivision, or person contracting under s. 173.15 (1) is not required to disclose information concerning a person into whose custody an animal was ultimately released unless ordered to do so by a court.

AB793, s. 10 Section 10. 173.21 (1) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,5,5 173.21 (1) (a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the owner has mistreated the animal in violation of ch. 951 or has violated s. 951.08.

AB793, s. 11 Section 11. 173.21 (4) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,5,11 173.21 (4) Return. A political subdivision or person contracting under s. 173.15 (1) having custody of an animal withheld under sub. (1) shall release the animal to the owner at the direction of the humane officer or law enforcement officer that took custody of the animal if the requirements of s. 173.23 (1) (a) to (c) and (e) are satisfied.

AB793, s. 12 Section 12. 173.22 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB793,5,18 173.22 (1) Petition. A person claiming that an animal that he or she owns was improperly taken into custody under s. 173.13 (1) (a) 3., 4., 5., 6. or 8. or is wrongfully withheld under s. 173.21 (1) may seek return of the animal by petitioning, no later than the 7th day after the day in which the animal was taken into custody, for an order from the circuit court for the county in which the animal was taken into custody or in which it is held.

AB793, s. 13 Section 13. 173.22 (2) of the statutes is renumbered 173.22 (2) (a) and amended to read: