Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Welcome everyone to house judiciary. It's Tuesday, January 12, I believe. Thirteenth. Might be the thirteenth. Yep. The thirteenth. And, we're gonna be looking at h five seventy eight and act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offensive. And we're gonna start off with the sponsor of the bill, Emily Krasnow.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Hello. That

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: was a

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: little too high.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Oh, yeah. I'm a little short.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I don't it's not you. Oh. Is that better? Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I went up a little bit. Oh, you did? Yeah.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Alright. Hello, everyone. So I am here today to introduce

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: introduce yourself?

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Oh, yes. Right. Representative Emily Frosnow, South Burlington Chittenden and I, for the record. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here today to introduce H-five 78, a bill that strengthens Vermont's response to animal cruelty and ensures meaningful accountability for those who cause harm. I grew up in Vermont, raised by a single mother who, despite many challenges, always made room in our home for animals in need. Dogs, farm animals, rescues. There were times when we had as many as six dogs at once. Each one was family, and each one deserved safety, care, and dignity. That upbringing shaped my understanding of animals not as property, but as living beings worthy of protection and compassion. It also shaped my belief that how we treat animals reflects who we are as a community. Unfortunately, not all animals are afforded that care. A case in Orange County illustrates why stronger laws are necessary. On April 9, an animal owner was arraigned in Orange County Superior Court in Chelsea on two counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty after pigs on her property were found emaciated and suffering from malnutrition and cold exposure. A veterinarian determined these conditions resulted from prolonged starvation and inadequate care. After the rescue, the pigs were placed with the Merrimack Farm Sanctuary in Charlotte, my hometown, and we'll hear from those folks later, where they are now recovering through a careful rehabilitative refeeding program and behavioral support. Last year, we saw another disturbing situation in which a dog involved in an abusive case was returned to its owner. After public attention grew, the owner launched a GoFundMe campaign, effectively profiting from the public's concern for the animal. This highlights a troubling pattern. Animals are sometimes treated as spectacles rather than beings in need of genuine protection. Now, before I continue, I also wanna highlight, I know that this bill has a bestiality provision, and I wanna talk about why that was added into the work that I had previously worked on. I woke up one morning reading about a case just down the road from me in Williston that had me so shaken and disturbed by the case that I felt compelled to add those pieces in. I was just so repulsed and disgusted. As we talk about bestiality, and we'll hear more from others about this component, We talk about, in the modern age that we're in now, how animals are being exploited in that way on the internet. So the updated provisions, which we'll talk here from legislative council about, were added after that case, which, according to research and you'll hear from other folks, is not abnormal and has been on the rise across the country in the age of the Internet. So that component. But I was just so repulsed and moved to act and felt like that needed to be added to the short form bill that I had talked about last year, that we just cannot, as a society and a state, continue those kinds of abuses and not talk about them. As I mentioned, animals cannot advocate for themselves, and their silence must never be mistaken for consent. We have to be their voice. This bill strengthens Vermont's animal cruelty laws by ensuring timely intervention, strong enforcement, and humane outcomes when animals are abused and neglected. And you'll hear more about what this bill does from legislative counsel and other witnesses. Animal cruelty is rarely an isolated issue. It often exists alongside broader patterns of neglect and violence that affect both animals and people. Preventing cruelty protections protects communities, not just animals. So I urge you all to support this bill. This is not only about animals. Again, this is about who we are as a society. Animals cannot stand up and ask us for their protection. So we must stand up for them. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I can answer any questions that the committee has.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Any questions for representative Krasno?

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Thank you. And I look forward to listening to an afternoon of testimony from some really incredible witnesses who are the true heroes on the ground doing the work.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you. Thank you, Harold. Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Next up, we got Eric Fitzpatrick from Legislative Council to do a walkthrough.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. To see you. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Counsel, here, as the acting chair said, to do the walk through of the committee on age five seventy eight, which is an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. I'm gonna repeat something I said during our introductions earlier in the session. You may recall that Michelle and myself are covering some bills that were originally worked on by them. We're not part of our portfolio, so we had kind of a short ramp up on on several topics. And as you would expect after I would say something like that, animal cruelty, it happens to be one of those top. So this is one that I I have picked up since then. So it may there may be scratch that. There will be more instances where I may respond to a question by saying, very good question. I'll need to go look into that. As you know, sometimes I say that anyway. But in fact, noticed that possibly would be a little more frequent than usual because this is a relatively new topic to me as well. So I shouldn't say as well. You you folks have been dealing with it longer, more recently at least than I have. So with that said, the big picture of what we're looking at with h five seventy eight, as you could take away from the title of the bill, I think, is that it's related to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. Now that means criminal offenses. But I mean, I think the the committee knows that the subject of animal welfare is dealt in a number of different places across Vermont law. It's not just in the criminal code. You have a lot of things in public safety. In Title 20, for example, you may recall just last year, you created the division of animal welfare along with the director of animal welfare, all in Title 20 within the department of public safety. You have things like rabies and vaccinations and wolfdog hybrids and licensing. All these things that are covered in title 20, not as a topic that this bill is addressing. Agriculture, another place that there's a lot of regulation of livestock, poultry, eggs, that sort of thing, covered in Title VI. Again, not what is being addressed in H570A. Because this is dealing with the criminal penalties. And that's within a specific chapter in Title 13. And the criminal offense is actually generally divided up both in terms of a list and by separate statutes into animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty. Those are the two crimes that we're gonna be talking about today. And familiar concept to the committee, whether it's simple assault, an aggravated assault, or sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, human trafficking, aggravated human trafficking. That concept, I think, is very familiar to everybody, that either by definition and by sort of a graded system of penalties that distinguishes between sort of what we might call, the statute doesn't say simple animal cruelty, but I'm kind of gonna use that today, just so you know which one I'm talking about when I say it. Those distinctions are similar in the existing laws. So you've got simple animal cruelty. You've got aggravated animal cruelty. They're distinguished by lengthy lists of what type of conduct is prohibited. You've got a long list of prohibited conduct that would be animal cruelty. You have another list of prohibited conduct that would be aggravated. There's some crossover depending on what some aggravating factors might be, and there are different penalties as well. So for simple animal cruelty, it's a misdemeanor. It's a one year misdemeanor for a first offense. It's a two year misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense, generally. There's a even the the penalty statute, frankly, is a little complicated. So but so there's a couple of of carve outs for that too, a couple of different situations where something that you think, well, wasn't that in a simple animal cruelty statute? And how did that get get to be a five year felony? Well, we'll leave that aside for the moment. But generally speaking, if it's simple animal cruelty, it's a misdemeanor. And generally speaking, if it's aggravated, it's a five year felony. Ten year felony per second or subsequent offenses. So you see pretty steep penalty differences between the simple. So with that kind of as the background, what does H578 do? And I'm gonna say three primary things that I see within the bill that are sort of making changes to the structure that I just described. So number one, as I was just saying, and I think representative Krasno is kind of alluding to this as well, that there are lengthy list of the types of conduct, types of prohibited conduct that will constitute either simple animal aggravated simple animal coercion aggravated. One of those lists, one of those types of conduct that's prohibited is sexual conduct with men. And before I'm not gonna do that right now because we'll look at the language of the bill in a few minutes. But just to sort of say upfront, and, again, I think representative Krasno alluded to this as well, by its nature, there's gonna be some some somewhat graphic descriptions that you'll see in the statutory language. As this committee knows very well, that sometimes happens in other statutes that you look at as well, sexual assaults statutes, the pornography statutes, that sort of thing. And it's really a constitutional requirement in the sense that it's a matter of due process, that people have to be informed with reasonable notice of what conduct is illegal. If you're gonna put somebody in jail or subject them to a fine, matter of due process is there at least to have to be some reasonable notice. You can't tell people afterward, hey. That was illegal. They're going to jail. There has to be some notice provided. And for purposes of these sorts of crimes, when it's a very particular type of conduct that's prohibited, the statutory language is very specific. This is what is illegal. This is what can subject you to print, essentially. So that's a little

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: just interesting.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just talking about notice. Notice on my part to you guys that the language is gonna be graphic in that sense. But so what's the change? What to that what the bill change number one is, it expands that definition of sexual conduct for purposes of sexual conduct within, expands it in a few different ways. A couple of the primary ways are ones that involves sexual conduct that takes place in the presence of a minor. So that's one big picture thing that's going on in the presence of minor. The other one is visual representations of the cut. So if you think about it, the underlying conduct, the act is illegal already. This adds to that list of visual representation. You could think of it as you've seen that before too in the pornography context, in the child pornography. Some ideas, not just the conduct, it's a visual representation. I think that's the artificial intelligence Internet aspect of it that represent Krausner was referring to as well. So those two things get added in. But within the big picture, at least three changes, change number expands the definition of sexual conduct for the animal for purposes of the crime. All right, that's change number one. Change number two. What I'm just talking about, and what I just referred to, are really the criminal sentences of incarceration, right, as the penalty for this misdemeanor or felony, depending on the crime. That's something that's required if someone's convicted of one of these crimes, whether it's simple or aggravated criminal assault, you've got this criminal, sorry, this sentence of imprisonment and or a fine that is required part of the penalty. In addition to that, though, under existing law, besides that, besides the incarceration, there's a number of other sanctions that the court is permitted to impose. And I say permitted because it's discretionary, not required. So there's five that I'm they're in this list. For example, the court can say, in addition, hey. You sentenced a six month in jail, whatever it might be. There might be a prison sentence. But there's these other things that the court may do. One is forfeiture of the animal that was subject to the abuse. Right? And, actually, you'll see in the language, not only forfeiture of the animal that was subject to the abuse, it's forfeiture of any other animal that the defendant owned at the time of the abuse. So that is but that's not required. It's discretion. Court can do that. Court can also impose what's called cost of care. So if you think about it, let's say you had this criminal case going on. Law enforcement seizes an animal. There's gonna be some time that passes between the seizure of the animal and whenever it happens to that court case down the road. You know, maybe the person's convicted, maybe they're not. But during that period of time, the animal is typically in custody, held by something. So it's accumulating costs, what's called cost of care. So that's another thing that the court can do. If the person gets convicted, they could say to the defendant, I'm gonna enter in the order, you're responsible for this cost of care that accumulated during that period. So that's another thing the court can do, another sanction they can impose. They can also impose education and prevention measures for the person that can require that the person be prohibited from possessing an animal in the future. Not just then, not just an animal they may possess at the time of the crime, but in the future. And the court can also require that the person be subject to sort of unannounced inspections in the future as well. But each thing that I just described is discretionary, not required. So that's change number two. Those discretionary penalties become mandatory. The may becomes a shall. So everything that you just heard me list, it's not a matter of discretion for the court anymore. That also and I again, this is the precondition is that the person got convicted. Right? Person gets convicted. These things, the court also has to impose a section. So that's number two. So we got expanding the definition of sexual conduct. We have changing from discretionary to mandatory, these other sanctions that the court imposes if somebody gets convicted. And now we have big big picture what's what else is going on the bill number three. And this has to do with and we're talking about this criminal proceeding just now. In addition, also in the same area of law, there is what's known as a civil forfeiture proceeding. Like, the committee has heard that talked about. And in fact, I think there's some members of the committee who've introduced bills on this very topic in the past, generally not specific to animal cruelty. But there's other places in the law, motor vehicles with respect to DUI or drug paraphernalia with respect to drug offenses or you know, it's just part of this general principle that that instrumentalities of crime are subject to forfeiture, generally speaking. So this one is in statute currently that there's also an opportunity for a humane officer to bring a civil as civil forfeiture proceeding. So this is separate from the criminal proceeding against the defendant, the owner. Right? This is a civil forfeiture proceeding, kind of a legal fiction, but the defendant is the proper in this case, it would be the ant. So if that's who the proceeding is brought against, and it doesn't result in any criminal conviction on the part of the owner. It's not against the owner in any way. But the court is permitted to find. If the court finds and again, because it's a civil proceeding, it's a lower standard of proof. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the animal was subject to animal cruelty. Well, then it can order forfeiture of the animal. Right? So this is that's all existing law. So what's the change? This goes back to change number three. It creates this oh, and so if the well, think about the it's the same sort of chronology that I was mentioning earlier with respect to the criminal proceeding. Imagine if and under the existing law, this humane officer has the right to seize an animal. If they have probable cause to believe that the animal is being subject to cruelty. But again, if they seize the animal, it's gonna take a while for that that even in the civil context, that proceeding to go along. So there's this period of time where the animal is being held in somebody's custody. Could be a humane society, a care organization, whoever that may be. Again, costs are being accumulated during that time. Under current law, if the if the court orders forfeiture of the animal in this civil proceeding, there is a way to get at some of those costs. The restitution unit has the authority to go after it in the same way they go after restitution orders and criminal proceedings. So they have that authority. But this adds another tool in the toolbox, so to speak. It's called the custody of care action. And so it creates this action whereby the state or the custody care organization, so whichever organization had custody of the animal, can bring an action directly against the owner for the cause. So it creates this statutory action that a person can bring and say, we're not gonna wait for the restitution unit to go try and get the money from this person. We're not gonna make the humane officer foreclose on a lien, because that's another thing that the statute creates a lien in the favor of the humane officer for the cost of care also allows this other method to recover that money, direct action by the organization or by

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: the state. I guess I'm confused why they can't do that now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They, in theory, could, but but you are making it expressed. So you're making it much more without any doubt because it would have to be some sort of argument that there's an implied right of action. Right? And that's a it might well be, but that's unpredictable. You've made it predictable and clear in exactly what the standards are, what has to be shown, how the process works. So you're right. It may well be, and it's a policy choice for you whether you wanna have it laid out in statute or not. But I think that's the idea behind it is sort of predictability, certainty, that sort of thing. Yep. So those are your three things. Big picture that goes on in the bill. The expansion of the definition of sexual conduct with an animal, the making alternative sanctions other than imprisonment mandatory rather than discretionary, and creating this cost of care action that the person can bring to recover the expenses that somebody incurred while the animal was being held pending the resolution of the sub case. So that's a big picture. We can look at the language a little bit, so of see where the the details are. But I could pause for a second too if anyone has any questions about what the big picture description does.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Before we get into the bill, anybody have any questions? Just representative Arsenault?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just thank you, Eric. I just wanna understand the the third change, and that it only applies in the case of spin chival

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Exactly.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: That significance? Guess maybe when I learn and forgot

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the theory. In theory, because think about there's sort of a connection here in some sense. Remember, the cost of care under current law, let's say in the criminal context. So, let's say the proceeding goes along and the person gets convicted. Under current law, remember, the court has the discretion to order that they pay cost of care. But the proposal is to make it mandatory. So, at least I think one way you can envision how this might be working is that, okay, in the criminal context, it's now being made mandatory. That court has to order.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: So This is sort of a complementary change.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In what is In the civil context and Okay. Thank you. That helps.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I've got a question for you that's tangentially related. We charge for care for other things pending trial, like for example, a child abuse case or I'm trying to think of another time when there's something that requires cost to provide care, or is this unique to the

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: abnormal world?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the answer to that. It's an interesting question, though. So that is thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say, I'll look into that and get back to you. So, yeah, I'm not a 100% sure, but it's an interesting question. So we'll see if there's any other statutory schemes set out that allow for that.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And I assume when we work through the bill, we'll hear its usual and customary charges that per charge, so Oh, right, from

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the witnesses, you mean? Yes, I think the Right. So if I opened up an animal care place and I wanted to charge exorbitant rates, that wouldn't be reimbursed. Yeah, think actually the statute does use the term reasonable costs. So yes, that's sort of built in in that way.

[Heather (Witness, full name not stated)]: I have a question about the cost of care. Is that is that something that's reimbursed after the fact or something that they're paying for to maintain ownership of the animals like a bond and forfeiture law or is it more of getting reimbursed after the long court proceeding?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Heather, if if you don't mind, you'll be testifying a little bit and and maybe you could bring up your questions then.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Any other question from the committee?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So let's take George. Yeah. Thank you thank you. And so let's skip to section two to start with. We're gonna come back to this definition in a moment, but I just wanna sort of lay out what I what I talked about in the very beginning. You see section two, page two, Excuse me. Lines line 15. Excuse me. That's cruelty to animals. That's the misdemeanor offense that I was describing earlier. So starts on line 16. You see that line, a person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if the person they have this long list. One, three, four, five, six, seven. I'm over on to page four now. Nine, ten, 11, actually goes all the way over on to page five. So there's a lengthy, as I said, lengthy list of types of prohibited conduct that constitute misdemeanor cruelty dandies, mostly, because there's a few again, I'm gonna skip the details. But there's a couple of places where some of these in the list get references to families as well. But for the most part, these are these are your misdemeanors. This is existing law. Correct. It's existing law. And, also, let's continue with the existing law. We're over on page four now. Line 11, subdivision 11, line 11. Engage and you see that one? So this is the long list of things that are simple to animals. Engages in sexual conduct with an animal. Right? So there's it's already that's existing law. That's prohibited, and it's a misdemeanor. And then it lists with under that other offenses all related to sexual con possessing, selling, gensuring, purchasing an animal would be intended to be used for sexual conduct. That was b. C, organizing, promoting, conducting, aiding, abetting, participating as an observer and act involving any sexual conduct with an animal. So, all these different types of conduct connected to sexual conduct with an animal. And you've got a, b, c, d, e, f, so five of them undercurrent law. Obviously, it begs the question, okay, because it doesn't say so here, what is sexual conduct with an entity? And for that, you have to turn back to definition on page two. And this is the specific description of what actual conduct, and by that, mean, you know, connection between a person and an animal, their body connections that actually do count as sexual conduct. And the proposal is to add two to that list. See that? So existing laws A and B, any act between a person and animal that involves contact between the mouth, sex, organ, or anus of a person, the mouth, sex, organ, or anus of an animal. B, without a bonafide veterinary animal husbandry purpose, important qualification there because there may be a reason for veterinary reasons or whatever that that sort of contact might be taking place. The insertion, however, slight of any part of a person's body or of any instrument, apparatus, or other other object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal. Again, law. So the proposal is to add two more C and D without a bonafide veterinary or animal husband repurpose, person touching or fondling a sex organ or anus of an animal either directly or a food clothing, or d, any intentional transfer or transmission of semen by a person upon any part of an animal. So expands the definition of sexual conduct, and that is connected to, turn ahead again, page four, That term sexual conduct appears. One, two, three, four, five.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Under one, two, three, four, five.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Under six different offenses there, a through f. So for purposes of those descriptions and prohibitions, that your deaf sexual conduct definition gets expanse. So that's one change. Change number two sorry. Go ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Same question. Go ahead. Just

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: wanna make sure I'm on the right track about this. Any intentional transfer or transmission of semen, that won't get bogged down with the artificial insemination of white cells and stuff like that. Right? You know what I'm saying about that?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I do. And Is that

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: the animal husbandry clause? Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But but interestingly, the clause is not present indeed. So it's an interesting question that it possibly and I'm gonna leave that to people who are more expert in this this that type of procedure than I am.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Thought it's not a policy thing. I'm okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. No. I I think you you should at least consider and hear from your witnesses whether or not you want to, in response to the point you raised, represent Grossman, Take that language on line eight. Without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry or husbandry purpose and repeat it at the beginning of Subdivision D. Do I see that? Mhmm. Now it may be don't know. Maybe there'll be a reason you'll hear from what you said that that shouldn't be done. But as a reader, I have the same reactions. You might want that, though. So worth flagging and thinking about for a minute.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. Eric, I just have one question. First, let me just say I'm fully supportive of the legislation. But one question I had is page three, line one, and it talks about the manner in which that we're interpreting the behavior of animals being inhumane. And so not to digress, but I think anecdotally, there's an instance that I'm thinking of in my own district, where there's a small property just on the outskirts of town with probably more than a dozen horses in a very small residential neighborhood. Do they look well cared for? Sure. But is it in the best interest of the animals to be smothered on space, but there's a dozen of them. So I'm curious of, granted, this is my first time going down the rabbit hole of animal welfare law, but what is the barometer of welfare and humane treatment? And who decides that?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just curious as you were raising that question, because I didn't know the answer off the top my head. So I thought, I wonder if either of those terms, either inhumane or humane treatment, were defined in the definition section because the full definition section is not repeated in the bill because we only reprinted the definition that's being changed. But as it happens, they're not anyway.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So I don't know if

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I sort of falsely eat up there, right? Because everyone's thinking, oh, there's gonna be a definition. There's not there isn't. So in response to your question, the I'm just double checking to make sure I didn't miss it in case it is there. I don't see it. Can you just get back

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to me? It just was something that came in my mind because I go on this walk in my town nearly every single day. I think about this every so it's very timely and topical that discussing this because it is something that I think about actively.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I think, and I will get back to you, but I think that if the term is not defined, then it's gonna be It possibly has been developed in case law, but ultimately, the arbiter of that is the jury. It does that in sort of the idea behind the jury is you have the common standards of things like that. And whether or not in a civil case, six or seven of them might agree, It's going to be your arbiter, ultimately, of whether it's human or not.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. And again, I would never want to dilute the purpose and intent of the specific organization. It is something that food for thought. Yeah. For me. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So I think that takes us over to page five. Remember, under existing law, there were these six different types of offenses that come under the sort of the the subject heading of conduct with an animal. And then another proposal related to sexual conduct is to add this g language on the top of page five. I mentioned this earlier. Remember, this is the visual image piece. So you possess film or distribute visual images of sexual conduct with an animal. Again, the sexual conduct definition is the one we just looked at, so it gets roped in there in another place as well. That's the proposal. Why not? Please. Thank you, Jeremy.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Maybe we're building up to this, but this includes images created by artificial intelligence.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, exactly. Now what's going on? Now the next section of the bill you see starts on line three of page five, aggravated cruelty. So this is the felon. Right? So this section has to do with felony conduct. You'll see there's one, two, three, three existing pieces to the the felony language now, often actually, in each of those involving intent. So it's a time about killing an animal intentionally causing the animal undue pain, intentionally maliciously without just cause torturing, mutilating, etcetera. So what this does is it proposes to add essentially, in fact, exactly, the language that we just looked at for the definitions of sexual conduct on page four, that line 11, those a through f. See those, that's existing law. What this does is it repeats that language in each of the instances starting on line 12 and subdivision four, A through f on the next page, it adds with the minor as a participant.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm just looking at line ten and eleven. That further looks messed up for some reason.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think what that means, that's an existing language, but I think what that refers to is basically intentionally killing a law enforcement officer's Serves an animal. Exactly. Canine. So that's looking for you. So he intentionally injures a cousin animal, and this is referring to the animal. That is in the performance of official duties, the animal is, while under the supervision of a law enforcement

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: officer. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got it. It's just worded funny.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well, I know it is. It takes a couple of times to see where it's going. So what this does is it adds this exact same language as you have an a through f, but it just adds the language, you know, in the presence of a minor or when a minor is a participant. And in those cases, it's a felony. See that difference? If it's if it's under if it doesn't involve the minor, it's a misdemeanor because that's under your standard quote to the animal statute. It involves a minor. It's felon. One thing I noticed, and I don't know if this it possibly was intentional. This is another one I'm just flagging for you guys. You may wanna ask witnesses. Is that the new g on the top of page five, this is the new piece about visual images of sexual conduct with an animal, that is not on the on the aggravated list, because I didn't see it. In other words, the aggravated list only goes through f. Doesn't add the new offense in the presence of a minor. So maybe that was intentional, or maybe it was an oversight, but I just wanted to mention it so that the committee might want to consider for purposes of consistency. I'd like to see what I'm asking. 4a isn't included? No. I think 4a through f, pages five through six, are all exactly replicate the existing a through f on page four, lines 11 through 21. So that except that it adds in the presence of a minor. You with me so far? Yep. Yep. But the new g on the top of page five about the visual images with an animal, that is not added to the aggravated crime if it's done in the presence of a minor. Maybe Maybe that was intentional. Maybe it was an oversight. I'm not sure. I'm just pointing it out so the committee can ask your witnesses. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Probably have some discussion on that going forward. Yeah. I'm sure. Yep.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Alright.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're moving on to so that's the sort of the end of the sexual conduct animal cruelty piece of the discussion. So pause there for a moment if there are any more questions on that topic. Alright. So now we're moving on to number two of our big picture. What is the what's the big picture thing? And here, remember, we're talking about making these man these discretionary sanctions mandatory. That's the not the criminal not the incarceration piece of it, not putting in someone in prison or criminal fine anymore. Now we're moving on to these other possible sanctions. So you're looking at if you start at page six, degree of of offense sentencing. So that's all has to do with the sentencing and the sanctions. And you'll see that subdivision one there, That's talking about generally some of the particular five year felonies and others or whether they are misdemeanors or felonies. But turn for a moment over to page eight, line nine. And that's subsection b. Everybody see that? It starts, in addition to any other sentence the court may impose. Everybody see that language? So this is a lit And then you see below that, you see, well, looking at first, just see numbers starting on my tongue. You got one, two, three, and then over on the top of page nine, four, five. So what that is saying is under existing law, in addition to any other that that's that we're talking about, that one year misdemeanor, five year felony, whatever it may be. In addition to that, the court may impose any one of these other sanctions. There's five of them listed there. And so what is the first change that you see in the bill? Line 10 line nine and ten. What's the word change there? Show. Made Made a show. One of our favorites. It's such a small change, but has such significance. So that's the proposal. These five other sanctions that currently are discretionary for the court are made mandatory. Court shall impose these. So and that's the that's the big picture change of what's going on here. But, you know, to see what are these five, I mentioned them at the beginning, but it's just so to refresh our recollection because there's a couple of changes within each within a couple of them as well. So number one, line 12, forfeit any rights to the animal subject to cruelty. So that's the one thing the court would now be required to do. And to any other animal, except livestock or poultry, owned, possessed, or in the custody of the defendant. Everybody see how that works. So that becomes mandatory. Sure.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go Except

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: livestock? Right. Why? I don't know. Good question. I don't I'm not sure the rationale behind that. So this would not be now that's remember, this is not referring to the the animal that was subject to the cruelty. That part of the language is another animal that person owns at the time they convicted of cruelty with respect to some other a. So if you're convicted of cruelty with respect to animal a and you also own animals b, c, and d, those animals would also be forfeited under this provision, except livestock or poultry. Not sure why that is.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So I I know you didn't care of this. I I know years ago when I first came in here or maybe when I saw on the soy boarded north here. Right. I know we had animal cruelty with horses. Yep. On top of on on top of oh my god. Whatever hell it is right now. Old male hell or whatever it is, growing up 64. Those people, I believe it was kind of a clear cut case in my my eyes. Mhmm. I believe they took and they moved those somehow or another, they moved into Norfield and then they went from there and I think think they went right to Williamstown and continue down the same path. I realized horses are different than life cycle. So that ring a bell with you either? No.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that case, but I would say that that if this is kinda similar to what may have happened, that let's say somebody has 10 horses.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they get convicted of truancy to one of the horses. Under this provision, it's not just that horse that would be forfeited. It's the other nine also. So they wouldn't be able to say, move the other nine to some other place and get out of or even if they didn't. But either way, the the the other nine would now be subject to forfeiture just like the one was that they were convicted of being cruel to.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I think it was all of them. I just wanna make sure so that verbiage is still in there that we've just got the whole thing covered Yeah. For right now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's now mandatory, not permissive. Not the court can order that. Court shall. Shall. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Is that a good one?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Maybe just so I clarify for myself, a more extreme example would be someone who's convicted of animal cruelty for conduct that they did to a family dog, but they also own a dairy farm. This would say that if they're convicted, then they would need to relinquish the dog, but they would not need to relinquish the dairy cows that they own in the as part of their operation of the farm.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's exactly the way I would read it. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So moving on to the next one. This is another one of these sanctions that now is being made mandatory. It's and that's repaying the reasonable costs incurred by providing care for the animal prior to judgments. Remember that's before the end of criminal judgment. So it removes that sentence that says what the court has to do if it doesn't order them to pay the cost because we're no longer an option. Oh, sorry. We're on lines 15 to 18, page eight. Yeah. So this repayment of costs is made mandatory if you don't need that second sentence anymore. Now onto the next one, number three. Remember I mentioned this earlier too. Not only does the court order forfeiture of any animals that the person owns at the moment of the conviction, but any future right to own, possess, or care for any man for a period not less than five years. So under current law, leaves up to the court complete discretion as to how long they're gonna prohibit the person from owning an animal, and it's discretionary whether they order that at all. This makes it mandatory and not less than five years. So at least five years in the future, if the person's convicted, they can't possess other animals. Now we're on to page nine. We've got two other pieces here. These sanctions, number four, I mentioned this earlier, participate in animal cruelty prevention programs or educational programs, or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling. So those are now mandatory. And lastly, number five, permit periodic unannounced inspection visits by a humane officer, essentially. And so those sanctions are all now made mandatory.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: So if somebody went through the cruelty prevention programs or educational programs, they potentially could get their animals back sooner.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think interesting point. I'm not sure if the successful completion of one of those programs would necessarily change the length of time that your animal has been forfeited under subdivision three. I don't see that. So to me, it looks like the way I read it, let's just take a time so it's easier to discuss. Let's say the court said you can't own any of the animals for five years. And you have to go through this successful completion of this animal coauthentic prevention program. I don't see any connection between those two that the court can then say, and if you successfully complete, I'll make it only three years. I think the five years is five years. But I suppose if it were more than five years, because it's just saying that the requirement is not less than five. So let's say instead the court had said ten, then maybe the court would have the option to say, okay, well, I'm gonna bump it down to five, because as long as I'm going with whatever the statutory minimum is, is successfully complete, I can probably reduce that to five. So there might be some inherent court authority there, as long as you don't go below that statutory minimum of five years.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Representative Richardson? Representative Robertson? So on page nine, part four, I'm not aware, and I'm sure we can hear from witnesses about the availability of animal cruelty prevention programs or educational programs, and if they're certified, if there's any quality of them. So that's one issue that I'm wondering about. The other one is it says, or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling, but it doesn't say specific to animal cruelty. So somebody could go see a therapist about stress or whatever, and it would meet the way this looks. Could meet that requirement. And also, I know that there are licensed social workers that practice in our life in Saint Gomond, as well as mental health counselors. And so this language is interesting to me because it doesn't necessarily say sealed licensed counselor.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, those are all, I think, legitimate questions to explore with your witnesses in this area and see if might want to ask. What kinds of counseling is ordered now? Who does it? And might it be worthwhile to add some language here that's more specific to this type of counseling? That sort of thing.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But it's big enough that it could be an issue. I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: agree with you if you're saying that because it doesn't limit or doesn't provide any guidance about the type of psychiatric or psychological counseling, then yes, it seems like it could be read. One would hope that that's not what the court would do in a particular case, but I think you're right, it could read the language as possibly permitting any sort of general counseling to satisfy

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the language. Especially because it says participate. So that might mean go once and get your intake and then check the box off and Right.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Okay. Thanks. Have you had a question?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm trying to go back in my notes here. There's something about we jumped into a juvenile. And I can't right here. On page on page nine, on line five Yep. Court may order the juvenile. Did I miss that before that where we were talking about a juvenile and why did we jump over to it? Why did we put that why is that language in there now? What Why wouldn't it have been in there sooner or it it just caught caught me off that it's there. I'm not trying to be rough on you. I know you're new with this one here, but

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not at all. Totally legitimate question, but thank you for the sentiment. I appreciate it. But I think it's obviously paralleling the sentence before it, in that it's talking about psychiatric and psychological counseling. In the instance of the first sentence, it's about an adult who has been convicted of this crime. Right? Because that's what this whole this whole list of sanctions that we're talking about only applies going back to the intro language on page eight line nine. In addition to any other sentence the court may impose, the court shall require a a defendant convicted of a violation. So this is an adult conviction, general, that that list of five applies to. You're right, representative But first, for a reason that I don't know the answer, In this specific instance only, the counseling piece, there's been a specific edition for juvenile proceedings. And that says, okay, if a juvenile is adjudicate delinquent, remember, that's a different thing. That's not a person convicted of a crime because that's what this all this other stuff applies for. So it's saying, okay. Also, in addition to a person convicted of crime, if you've got a juvenile adjudicated delinquent, which is in the family, not in the criminal. Then the court may order the juvenile to undergo psychiatric or psychological evaluation, participate in treatment. So it's sort of an added element of a juvenile disposition. Someone who's been adjudicated delinquent that would only apply to a child in the family division in a juvenile proceeding.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So backed into a couple more things I was gonna hit on. So the juvenile, if it's a juvenile, it's gonna be looked at much differently than a so called grown up. Right?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, differently, yeah, in the sense that the proceeding is different, the types of sanctions are different, the proceeding is confidential, You have a case plan. You have a social worker from the Department of Children and Bambles involved. Yes. All those things are different than a than a criminal proceeding. Yes. And you don't have a criminal record at the end, the way you do in a criminal proceeding.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: And remind me again, what age did you win, Alice?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, at the moment, it is below the age of 19, so 18 max.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Okay, now I just-

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Four years. All right, now let's just back up

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: to page eight, line 20 on where did the not less than five years come from? Any idea?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That was the that was in the I think your witnesses might be able to answer that. No.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I don't know.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I can

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: answer it if

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: you want.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Sure. Go ahead.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Representative again.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: The original short form bill that I put forward said never again. But due to feedback from committee members, it was suggested to believe in a restorative justice approach that, so why is it five years versus ten? I can't say that, but, personally, I would like folks never to own the animal again, but, other folks had felt that it would be fair to not do a forever ban, that people can recover from abuse. But that is a policy decision if the committee decides to change it to a different time. But I had originally proposed forever. Does that make sense?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. It makes sense. But I also see people and other things where we're doing stuff that they reviews or they re reoffend and all this stuff here. So the five years just

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: really I agree.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Really got me.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: That's good. I'm writing changes too. I feel like it's a little errant today.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: But, yeah, if the committee people like to make it longer or forever, that's in their discretion. But I think some committee members didn't like that. So I had made it softer.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: You all set? Yep, thank you. Senator Harvey.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. This is actually to the bill sponsor. Of the things that I've seen done in this room with different piece of legislation is almost a tiered approach. Right? I agree with you. One offense is one offense too many, especially regarding this subject matter. But one of the things we could work with you on if you'd be interested is either tiered or what do you suggest the five years becomes? I mean, know indefinite, and that would be my view as well, for like ten years, fifteen years.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: Yeah, I mean, I'm not a lawyer or an expert in the court system, but, I'm amenable to whatever the committee decides. That's not Again, you know where my original stance was because in the short form bill, it was a lifetime ban. But after talking to some folks, they thought that was maybe that people could redeem themselves in different ways through treatment and other things. So, that would be, but if you want to make it, I wouldn't want it shorter. Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no. Right.

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: I know that's not your intent But, I personally, as far as I operate in this building, the bill is yours now to make those decisions. I trust the expertise of this committee. So whatever you all think, as long as it's not shorter, here are other reasons. I'm not an expert in the court of judiciary sentencing, but, the intent of the bill, one of the biggest catalysts for why I introduced this is because I believe that if you're convicted of animal harming animals, that one of the biggest problems is that you still can have animals and then repeat offend, which I've seen over and over again, and that is a huge problem, and our state needs to take action. So that's how I feel, but you know that my original intent, because there

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the short form, was a lifetime Yeah, lifetime.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: On some level, I'm not sure how, maybe we can compare it to some other

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Some other laws Right. Penalties and crimes,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know, type of Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Representative Oliver and then any representative Arsenault? I was I was just gonna ask, is there anything where we hold on the state level crime that has completed their sentence that we would hold the behavior against them entirely in its impurity. Guns? That's federal. Oh, no. Did we pass the state?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You did pass it at state law.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Passed state.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Although you can get an you can get an order of even if it in the statute that requires firearms possession, you can get a relief petition to court for relief effort too.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Can you have somebody say it's a repetitive sex offender, not with animals, have children after they?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you generally would be put on for many offenses, you would be put on the sex offender registry, and that would prohibit you from but again, and that too is what I would wanna you from what? Now, can you get removed from the sex offender registry or is it time? That's what I'm not sure off the top of my head, whether it's lifetime or whether for some offenses it has a finite end to it. I can't recall that. I don't know

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: the language around it exactly, but I know people have been removed from it.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I remember that too. I can't remember Yeah. But I don't It's a I remember it's a

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I do. It's quite

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As opposed to an automatic thing. Maybe something you have to petition maybe. I can't recall.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I don't remember. Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's $53.11, but I can't remember what it says. I remember the number. I think it's

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: 5411. Representative Barthold, do have a question?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. So I was just wondering about this still on page nine, top of page nine, it's number four. The way that it's broken up by that, the description of in the case of delinquency, The last sentence, the court may impose the costs of such programs or counseling upon the defendant when appropriate. I'm assuming that only applies to adult defendants.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the way I would read it, because the defendant does not typically, it's not the term that's used for juvenile proceedings, I would read

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: it that way.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So I guess the term itself,

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: but I was just thinking For clarity.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: For clarity, it might help to move that language up.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. No, that's good point. You could easily could, for example, you can make a subdivision A and a subdivision B, for example, and move that sentence into a subdivision A after the first sentence, and then your new subdivision B could start with the juvenile sentence. That way there would be no ambiguity about whether that sentence costs are supposed to apply to the juvenile. Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, that seems to I mean, it would be highly unlikely, I would hope, to expect that a juvenile would be able to pay for their

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: counseling. So

[Rep. Emily Krasnow (Bill Sponsor)]: just for clarity's sake, I'd like to see it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Order the book.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, makes sense.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Oliver, do you have another question?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I know. It sounds a little strange, but when we start creating something like this, we change it. Do we need to

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: reevaluate whether it needs

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: to be sealable or spongable? Will it remain that way on its own merit? Well, sealable or available, or like one of the big 14 or five to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: It's a list, so we likely would need to look at the list. Well,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: I don't know if it'll fall under the list.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I think we could just look at it. That's right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not under the if you mean if you were referring to the big 14 juvenile, it's

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: not

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on Atlas. But I don't know if that's what you were you were talking to

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: see about. So maybe specific to sexual assault or something. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I that's what the that's one of them. Yeah. That's in the 14 part. Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: We're to section

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: five? Yes. For the sake of

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: time Yep. Can we hold our questions until the end? Because we do have quite a few witnesses that are gonna come after air. Sure. Sure. And I I am planning on a a break right at 02:30 for five or ten minutes. Yep.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Sounds good. Alright. And this one, I think I can go fairly expeditiously on. Yeah. So this is the section we've gone through the first two items in our big picture. Right? Remember that? Kinda thinking back for a second. Item number one, expanding the definition of sexual conduct. Item number two was making these other sanctions mandatory rather than discretionary. And we're now on to item number three in our big picture, which is the cost of care action in a civil proceeding. Remember? So we're not in the criminal proceeding anymore. Now we're in the civil barbitur proceeding. When does this apply? This is not and, again, this is separate from the criminal conviction. It can be a parallel proceeding that can both be going on at the same time, or civil proceeding could conceivably be initiated, and even though a criminal proceeding wasn't, can go either way. So what happens now is that a humane officer, and this is down on page 10, line two, How does an animal get seized for purposes of one of these civil proceedings? Well, there's really two ways. I mean, there's voluntary surrender. I didn't highlight that. That's line 16. That's page 10. So that's always the possibility. The person be voluntarily surrendered. But let's say that doesn't happen. Well, in that case, you've got a use of a warrant. Right? Humane officer can go to court, get a warrant if they have a very last line, page 10, line 21. Probable cause to believe an animal is being subject to cruel treatment and violation of this sub cap. So as we just went through, there's this long list of what animal cruelty is. Right? So if the officer has probable cause to believe the animal is being subjected to cruel treatment, then go to court, ask for a warrant. Court can show a warrant, they and can go see the animal. Right? That's option number one. Option number two, page 11, line nine, kind of might have been rule three, seizure without a search warrant. The you see that? See, it specifically authorizes the human humane officer to seize the animal without a warrant if also a parallel to rule three if the officer witnesses a situation. So everybody remember rule three, they're generally speaking, witnessed misdemeanors are subject to seizure without a warrant. But here it's saying if the humane officer witnesses a situation in which the humane officer determines that an animal's life is in jeopardy and immediate action is required to protect the animal's health or safety, Then the officer makes the animal without a warrant. So, again, you got an emergency life threatening situation. Then you don't have to pause, go to court, get a warrant.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Couldn't you articulate exigent circumstances with the mobility of a dog?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I bet you could. I bet you could. Yep. This lays it out in statute for, I guess, that maybe the officer doesn't have to think about that. I totally agree with that. That would constitute a good circuit. Yeah. All right, so we know how it is they can seize them. Bottom page eleven, first sentence, care after seizure, because that's what we're getting at here. The Humane Officer shall provide suitable care at a reasonable cost. Remember that represent represent Richardson? You're asking about the cost. Reasonable cost, line 17, for an animal seized under this section and have a lien on the animal. So the humane officer has a lien too. So, technically, that's another way they could try and eventually get this money back. So let's skip a little bit. So over to page 12, line nine. Okay. So what happens next? They seize it. They could bring this civil forfeiture action. Right? The animal seized under the section state may commence a civil proceeding for forfeiture, it's and in the criminal division, not in the civil division. All right? They file a motion, then subsection E, bottom of page 12 lays out what the procedure for the hearing is. You have a preliminary hearing within twenty days after it starts. And there's various procedural requirements over on the page 13, and then I'm gonna get to what does the court have to find in order for the animal to the order to actually be issued forfeiting it. That's on page 13, line 10. At the hearing on the motion for forfeiture, the state shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence. Now remember, that is not as demanding a threshold as a criminal conviction, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Right? Clear and convincing. It's more than a preponderance, more than more likely than not. So it's somewhere between those two burdens of proof. So clear and convincing is what applies. And they have to show by clear and convincing evidence, the animal is subjected to cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, and violation of those and those are the those two crossroads there, three fifty two and three fifty two a, are the animal cruelty statutes that we looked at a little while ago. Line 14, if the state needs its burden of proof, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the enemy. So let's say, think about it for a moment. The court does order forfeiture. The state does meet its burden of proof. Well, for some, there was some period of time then where the animal was being held in custody. And during that period of time, it was going to cost money to feed the animal, take care of the animal. Probably if the animal is subject to abuse, good chance that medical attention was required of some kind. So all these expenses have built up. So who pays for that? Who's responsible for those expenses? Over on page 14, lines of 12 through 14, if the defendant is convicted of criminal charges under this chapter or if an order of forfeiture is entered against an owner under this section, right, that's the civil forfeiture proceeding we just talked about. So if the court says yes, prosecution, you've met your burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. This person committed animal cruelty. We're ordering forfeiture, then the defendant is responsible for the money. So the obvious question is, okay. Well, the spec defendant is responsible for the money. How does it how does it collect it? Right? Well, there's existing language is line sixteen and seventeen. The restitution unit within the Center for Crime Victim Services is authorized to collect the funds. K? There's an existing procedure for how this would get collected by the restitutionary. So we have the big picture three, remember, of what this bill does. It adds another method of collecting that money. And that starts over on page 15, line 18. And you see the title of it, Cost of Care Action. So that's your third major thing going on in this bill. If an animal, and I'm reading line 18, if an animal is seized under this section, the state or custodial caregiver may commence a civil proceeding for reimbursement of the reasonable cost of animal care, again, reasonable, representative person, and in the unit of the criminal division, where do you think it's alleged to have occurred? So that's your other thing. The rest of this language all the way through to several other page to go is basically the mechanics of that type of action. How does the proceeding work? So if we turn over to page 16, line one, it's started by filing a petition for reimbursement. Next, subdivision subsection I there talks about, well, what is the petition that you file? Have to contain a subdivision subsection j. How is it served? Gotta be served personally, usually, unless they're unable to do that, then they can post it on the person's place of residence, sometimes referred as a tack order. I've never heard that phrase, which I'd never heard it before, because you tack it to somebody's door. I don't know. I asked Chad, I didn't I didn't know where that phrase came from. Asked Chad, what's this tack order of? It's like, oh, it's good you tack it to the door. When you first said it, I was thinking horses. Oh, yeah. That's right. That's a reasonable conclusion. Alright. Over on the top of page seven, how they have to have a court has to have a hearing on the cost of care as soon as possible after the motion or petition is filed. Then what what happens after the hearing next? Further down to page 17, line 15. This is a two things I'm flagging for the committee that I noticed as well in this language. It's The way it's phrased now, upon showing the animal was seized lawfully and that the cost of care of any animal seized is necessary. So those are the two things that the court has to find in my view. I think you might wanna think about changing that language upon a showing to if the court finds. Court finds that any animal is he is lawfully and that the cost of care of any animal is necessary. So just think about that, the specifically laying out. Because I'm not sure. I haven't really it's a little unusual about language upon a showing. It's not saying what by unshown by what? A preponderance, clear and convincing, it's a little unclear. So make it clear. And you might even wanna say that, say, if the court finds by whatever, by preponderance for a clear and convincing. For purposes of being consistent with the seizure of the animal. You have to leave it with me at clear and convincing earlier? Yeah. So for purposes of consistency, you might want to clear and convincing again, but policy decision for you guys. And if that's the case, then the court court orders that's on line 18. If the court finds it or is it showing the animal the animal sees lawfully, the cost of any care is necessary, then the court shall order payment into the registry of the court. And that was my second question. I just haven't had a chance to ask about this, and I I just see him on the witness switch for tomorrow. So you may wanna follow-up with him about, is that the right place to put the money? Just where where it should go. You know? And that may be right, may not be, but it occurred to me as a as a you wanna get that right so that it's the money's going to the right place. So that's where the money goes, assuming the court makes the finding. Turn over on to page 18. Subdivision two there talks about the fact that generally, the court does not include ability to pay when it's determining the amount of a cost of care order. So it's about how much care was incurred, how much the cost was incurred, not how much the dependent can pay. That second sentence there, if the payment is not made within five days, then the animal is forfeited, so they got five days. And this arrest of page 18 is interesting. I feel like, actually, this may respond in some ways to one of the questions you had from one of the witnesses. And they asked about the sort of ongoing nature. Because if you think about it, the court may order that funds be deposited to pay for cost of care, but the proceeding may be ongoing. So in other words, costs are continuing to accumulate. So what you see on page 18 there is sort of this payment structure that every 30 days, the person has to pay more if they're incurring more costs, and kind of keep tabs on it as it's ongoing and continue to make payments if they found to have committed abuse. So, and then the and then the very bottom page 18, upon payment of those funds, the person may immediately begin to draw from those funds. So they can really start drawing it down once it's paid into the fund. And then lastly, over page 19, the last page, subdivision six, if at the end of any of these charges, there's still any money left in the fund, it goes back to the person who paid it. So the court they don't keep it. Last couple of pieces. This is interesting and similar to other places you've seen this in the criminal law too, that any statements that are made in connection with this civil proceeding are not admissible. That's line eight, page 19 are not admissible in the criminal prosecution. So again, as I mentioned, these are two separate proceedings. There's an appeal right subsection sub subsection n. That is actually existing law. It just got moved from somewhere else. So that's not new. It was oh, yeah. There. It's on page 15, line 16, currently. It's just struck from there and moved over to a new place. And that's it. That's what I have.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Kenneth Oliver, do you have a question? Yeah. And the representative, Goodnow?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Trying to put it out there. I know from previous experiences, I've been dealing things. If I seize a manabol and I put it into the custody of somebody else to take care of it, they're charging, I'm certain I'm gonna get the bill.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You being a law enforcement officer? Yeah. Well, the depart The depart right?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: And the department's gonna be not paying for it. It's evidence. They changed the paper. The paper will turn into some sort of argument who's responsible for the bank.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Right. Because obviously, it's not an object. But that's an object. Yep. That works. Similar to towing a car, you take a car for other than it's stuff like that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It's interesting point. It may be that you want to wanna make sure that whoever incurred the cost gets reimbursed.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So Could that be done through victim awareness advocacy? I have no idea. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Right. Yep. Maybe something that that they they could do, but it also may be something that you wanna be clear about in the language.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Eric, three quick questions I hope quick questions that are just going to help me as we're hearing from other witnesses. Sure. And I'm going to start broad Tanaro. Broad one, is animal defined?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Subdivision 351a, animal means all living sentient creatures, comma, not human beings. So for example,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm just gonna use a kind of wild example. For one of the subsections that define simple animal cruelty. It was 10. Use a live animal as a game or contest or in training animals in mid air, I think it's similar 10 BSA before or the rules adopted thereunder. So if you had a fishing contest and you used live bait, like worms, is that a violation of subsection

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: 10?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is the fish and wildlife and conservation title, which I am not familiar with. Okay. So I don't know. But I think the way it's written, it it wouldn't just be any baiting of a bug. Oh, nice. In violation of that ban.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: 10 BSA is referring both to the live animal baiting and the training

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the way I read it. Okay. Okay. So my suspicion without having read it, page title 10, Earth's of Conservation and Hunting and Fishing and all that stuff, that in all likelihood, someone would have noticed. I was about to say caught it. That would have been a wrong use of that term. Someone would have noticed if they were inadvertently making baiting a fishing hook with a worm is animal cruelty crime. Great. We do often say nice catch when somebody Oh, yeah. That's true. I've said that many Okay. True. Great.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So the second question is

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm asking what's the second question.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Was that the second one?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, what is an animal? Is that third question? You're almost exhausted. Okay,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: in that case, I'll just add one other one. Something that has come up as we've been discussing this build is an idea around a liability shield for those institutions that take on animals that are seized either in the civil forfeiture hearing or civil forfeiture track or in the criminal forfeiture track or maybe both if they're both pending. If that was something that I were to ask or we were to hear about from witnesses, is that something that would be appropriate to be put in this bill?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. That's right where you would want. And it may be there somewhere. Like, as I say, I don't have the background in this area of the law. When you said it, it just sort of rang a bell. I feel like maybe, but I could have seen it somewhere else. So maybe it doesn't exist, but it might. I'm not I'm just not sure.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Okay. I guess I'm interested in that. So, yeah, we'll we'll hear from other.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yep. So if penalties and expenses aren't paid, can a custodian sell an animal to recoup expenses? There is some method for that. Yes. But assuming that the that the forfeiture is ordered or the person is convicted, one or the other. Or in the other instance, what's it what if they don't pay at a five day limit? Right? Forfeiture of the animal under the under the proposal for the cost of care action. Pay if the required payment is not deposited within five days, then the animal shall be forfeited. So, yes. I think if if

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Five days. Yeah. Oh, okay. Just horses that are going through my mind with rescue and that type of thing.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Sure. Sure. I know that

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: they take in horses and get them healthy

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: and do sell them all the time.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I think assuming that they've complied, you know, the procedure beforehand has has been complied with or or that the person has went over their time limit for not paying, then yes, would be enough. Any other questions for Eric?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Representative Arsenault?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I like this is I just don't recognize this language. So I'm looking at page 12, starting at line nine, where it's describing civil forfeiture action and where it says the state may commence a civil proceeding for forfeiture. A forfeiture in the unit of the criminal division of the Superior Court. So is that your thing? Commits a civil proceeding in civil unit of the same court where the criminal proceeding is happening?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, in this case, it's, yes. It's not actually necessary that the criminal proceeding is going on, because it's where the offense is to occur. Where it technically doesn't require that there be a criminal proceeding. It could be. It could be that the current proceeding is also being instituted by the state. But it's possible that there's a situation where maybe for burden of proof reasons, they think they could be current convincing, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Who knows? So but it it could be both proceedings or it could be just the civil.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You're right about the location.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Jurisdiction, like, the venue. Okay. It wasn't the civil proceeding in the in the unit of the criminal division didn't make sense to me, but it's just saying on the civil side of the same.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Within the criminal division, it's a civil proceeding, not a criminal.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Which is unusual. There used to be more

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: They do it with the driver's license.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They do with the driver's license. Also, I think the Right. The DUI suspension. Yeah. Civil suspension hearing as well. So because, again, you have your criminal's DUI case, but there's also a civil proceeding that can go into your license suspension that also parallel track, lower standard of proof, also under criminal division. Same with the DUI criminal cases. Gotcha.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: Yep. Any other questions for Eric?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Eric, that was a pretty thorough walkthrough for somebody who if they had it down. Thank you. I appreciate that. I a little shaky beforehand. Think you've mentioned it earlier. I'm like, I'm gonna give you the example of how to talk to people.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: So the railway committee, what we will do is we, since it's so close to 02:30, we'll take our ten minute break now, come back at twenty five up. And if we could come right back, so we can get started, as soon as we can, because we do have a number of witnesses

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: and I

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)]: wouldn't