[accmemberdiscussion] my review thus far of AL SB246 (seizure)
- From: Theresa M Cook <southnmist@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Legal Samoyed <legal_samoyed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ACC <accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:07:32 -0600
It was posted on ALPet-law that Senator Little is adding the wording that if an
owner is found not guilty, all monies shall be refunded to him or her (thanks
Beth!).
I understand that the bill copies on ALISON show amendments with underscores
and/or strike out of words. I printed the current sections of the code that
are changed by SB246 to read it without the distraction of the correcting
marks.
Currently Section 3-1-29, subsection (b), second paragraph states:
"Any dog used to fight other dogs in violation of subsection (a) of this
section, shall be confiscated as contraband by the sheriff or other law
enforcement officers and shall not be returned to the owner, trainer or
possessor of said dog. The court shall award the animals to the humane society
or other agency handling stray animals. At its discretion, the humane society
or other agency handling stray animals shall humanely dispatch or dispose of
any confiscated dog."
Is this not considered seizure?
As currently presented, SB246 REMOVES the above paragraph and replaces said
paragraph through subsection (c) [inclusive] with:
"If the sheriff or other law enforcement officer or agent of the county or the
municipality determines that it is necessary or appropriate to seize any animal
used in violation of subsection (a), the sheriff or other law enforcement
officer or agent of the county or municipality shall seize the animal and take
it to the local humane society or other animal welfare agency."
Unless I am not reading it corretly, SB246 removes the current "no questions
asked" seizure and replaces it with "if it is determined necessary or
appropriate to seize any animal."
Current subsection (e):
"After confiscation the humane society or other animal welfare agency may make
application to the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether any animal
seized pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall be humanely destroyed
due to disease, injury or lack of any useful purpose because of training or
viciousness. The court shall set a hearing date not more than 30 days from the
filing of the application and shall give notice of the same to the owners of
the animals. Upon a finding by the court that the seized animals are diseased,
injured or lack any useful purpose due to training or viciousness, it shall be
within the authority of the humane society or other animal welfare agency to
humanely destroy such animal. Any animal found by the court not to be diseased,
injured or lacking any useful purpose due to training or viciousness shall be
delivered to a court-approved private veterinarian or a private housing
facility under the supervision of a veterinarian. Expenses incurred in
connection with the housing, care or upkeep of the dogs by any person, firm,
partnership, corporation or other entity shall be taxed against the owner."
New subsection (e):
"Within 10 days of the seizure of the animal, the sheriff or other law
enforcement officer or agent of the county or the municipality shall request
that the judge presiding over the case require the owner of the animal to post
a bond or deposit funds with the clerk of the court to cover the cost of food,
shelter, and care, including veterinary care, for the animal, throughout the
duration of the case that was the cause of the animal being seized. The judge
shall hold a hearing within 10 days of the application, at which time the
sheriff or other law enforcement officer or agent of the county or municipality
shall be required to demonstrate probable cause for seizing the animal."
The hearing time frame has been shortened from 30 days to 10 days, and now the
hearing states probable cause must be demonstrated. I did not see anything in
the old subsection except to determine if the dog should be destroyed or placed.
Current subsection (f):
"If any dog owner is convicted under subsection (a) of this section, the
animal(s) shall be awarded to the local humane society or other animal welfare
agency."
I did not see if the owner is found not guilty, that the animal and funds would
be returned to him or her. I guess Little is re-writing the bond part...but he
needs to be clear that the the animal is returned to owner AS RECEIVED (in
other words, NOT NEUTERED IF INTACT TO BEGIN WITH).
I haven't gone through the rest of the bill but the above is what I noticed
thus far. If I am reading it incorrectly PLEASE let me know!!!
Theresa
HSUS helping Haitian pets? Don't fall for it! HSUS just wants your money!
http://tinyurl.com/y9outqn
RAOAL Responsible Animal Owners of Alabama
The video HSUS wants to hide!
~~~If you can't stand BEHIND our troops...feel free to stand in FRONT of
them!!! ~~~
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
Other related posts:
