CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 793Introduced by Assembly Member SchultzFebruary 18, 2025 An act to amend Sections 31601, 31621, 31622, 31626, 31645, and 31683 of, and to add Sections 31601.5, 31601.7, 31601.9, 31601.11, 31601.13, 31601.15, and 31622.5 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to dogs. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 793, as introduced, Schultz. Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.(3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.(4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.SEC. 2. Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.SEC. 3. Section 31601.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.SEC. 4. Section 31601.9 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.SEC. 5. Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.SEC. 6. Section 31601.13 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.SEC. 7. Section 31601.15 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.SEC. 8. Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.SEC. 9. Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.SEC. 10. Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.SEC. 11. Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.SEC. 12. Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.SEC. 13. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 793Introduced by Assembly Member SchultzFebruary 18, 2025 An act to amend Sections 31601, 31621, 31622, 31626, 31645, and 31683 of, and to add Sections 31601.5, 31601.7, 31601.9, 31601.11, 31601.13, 31601.15, and 31622.5 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to dogs. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 793, as introduced, Schultz. Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.(3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.(4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 793
Introduced by Assembly Member SchultzFebruary 18, 2025
Introduced by Assembly Member Schultz
February 18, 2025
An act to amend Sections 31601, 31621, 31622, 31626, 31645, and 31683 of, and to add Sections 31601.5, 31601.7, 31601.9, 31601.11, 31601.13, 31601.15, and 31622.5 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to dogs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 793, as introduced, Schultz. Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.(3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.(4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.
This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.
The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.
(2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.
(3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.
This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.
(4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.SEC. 2. Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.SEC. 3. Section 31601.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.SEC. 4. Section 31601.9 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.SEC. 5. Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.SEC. 6. Section 31601.13 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.SEC. 7. Section 31601.15 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.SEC. 8. Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.SEC. 9. Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.SEC. 10. Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.SEC. 11. Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.SEC. 12. Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.SEC. 13. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.
SECTION 1. Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SECTION 1.
31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.
31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.
31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(b)(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.
31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)
(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become can pose a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
(b)
(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
(c)The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
(3) The societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has departed significantly from considering dogs as purely private property toward viewing them as a member of their family. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs extend far beyond the loss of money.
(4) Dog owners in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not be unnecessarily killed when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, and promotes responsible ownership without unnecessarily killing dogs.
SEC. 2. Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.
SEC. 2. Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 2.
31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.
31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.
31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.
31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.
SEC. 3. Section 31601.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
SEC. 3. Section 31601.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 3.
31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
31601.7. Irremediable means the threat to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be reduced through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
SEC. 4. Section 31601.9 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.
SEC. 4. Section 31601.9 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 4.
31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.
31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.
31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.
31601.9. Ordinary dog means a dog that is generally tolerant of limited and infrequent deliberate and accidental actions by humans, or by another animal, that are unwelcome from the dogs perspective.
SEC. 5. Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.
SEC. 5. Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 5.
31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.
31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.
31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.
31601.11. Provoke means to perform an intentional, unintentional, or negligent act that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to agitate, scare, or confuse an ordinary dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal. The severity of a bite shall not be dispositive of provocation.
SEC. 6. Section 31601.13 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
SEC. 6. Section 31601.13 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 6.
31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
31601.13. Public health, safety, and welfare includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
SEC. 7. Section 31601.15 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.
SEC. 7. Section 31601.15 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 7.
31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.
31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.
31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.
31601.15. Unprovoked means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct described in Section 31602 or Section 31603.
SEC. 8. Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.
SEC. 8. Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 8.
31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.
31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.
31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.
31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officers immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency heads designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and dangerous, or may find, upon clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter.
SEC. 9. Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
SEC. 9. Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 9.
31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.
(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence. evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit findings to support the conclusion the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the courts determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.
SEC. 10. Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
SEC. 10. Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:
### SEC. 10.
31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
31622.5. Any order issued pursuant to this article to destroy a dog shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
SEC. 11. Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
SEC. 11. Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 11.
31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
SEC. 12. Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
SEC. 12. Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 12.
31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
31645. (a) A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to destruction in accordance with city or county law, may be destroyed by the animal control department only when it is found, after found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621), 31621) that the release of the dog would create a significant an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) If it is determined that a dog found to be vicious shall not be destroyed, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.
SEC. 13. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
SEC. 13. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 13.
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no
(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed. breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same burdens of proof, and explicit findings of unprovoked conduct and irremediable and unreasonable threat to human and animal safety, set forth in Sections 31621, 31622, and 31645 in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public safety such that it could be placed in a category that could result in an order of destruction.
(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for the destruction of a dog unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case by clear and convincing evidence that the dog should be categorized in a way that could lead to an order of destruction and that the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing an unreasonable risk to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this subdivision applies to all cities, including charter cities.