Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. Existing law requires the chief officer of a public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of a 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 requires notification to the owner or keeper of a dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity and that the owner or keeper of the dog is authorized to present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law requires the owner or keeper of the dog to be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. Existing law requires that the hearing be held promptly within no less than 5 working days and not more than 10 working days after service of notice. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement or animal control officer, if upon investigation it is determined that probable cause exists to believe a dog poses an immediate threat to public safety, to seize and impound the dog pending a hearing to determine whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law requires, after that hearing, the owner or keeper of the dog to be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued and, if a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, requires the owner or keeper of the dog to take specified action, as provided. Existing law authorizes the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog to, within 5 days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision, as specified. Under existing law, the court hearing the appeal is required to conduct the hearing de novo and to decide the issue upon the preponderance of the evidence.
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 that includes all, part, or none of these provisions, if that program does not regulate potentially dangerous or vicious dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.
This bill would instead require a city or county to comply with the above-described hearing, notification, and appeal provisions. The bill would also raise the applicable evidentiary standard to by clear and convincing evidence for the determination of whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious and appeals on that issue.
This bill would require a law enforcement or animal control officer, if a dog is seized and impounded pending a hearing to determine whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious, to provide a notice of rights to the owner or keeper of the dog at the same time as the above-described notice of hearing. The bill would require that the notice include a detailed description of the reason the owner's or keeper's dog is being seized and impounded and specified information on the hearing procedures. The bill would require the owner or keeper of the dog to sign the notice under the penalty of perjury affirming that they are the owner or keeper of the dog and that they received the notice. The bill would require the law enforcement or animal control officer providing the notice to retain a signed copy for their records and to provide a signed copy to the owner or keeper of the dog.
By expanding the crime of perjury, and to the extent the bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement and animal control agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
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 counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Statutes affected:
AB 2574: 31621 FAC, 31622 FAC
02/20/26 - Introduced: 31621 FAC, 31622 FAC