ABUSED AND NEGLECTED ANIMALS; DISPOSITION S.B. 657 (S-1) & 658 (S-1):
ANALYSIS AS PASSED BY THE SENATE
Senate Bills 657 and 658 (Substitute S-1 as passed by the Senate)
Sponsor: Senator Dayna Polehanki (S.B. 657)
Senator Paul Wojno (S.B. 658)
Committee: Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety
Date Completed: 8-23-24
RATIONALE
Currently, individuals accused of animal cruelty or neglect must participate in a bond-or-forfeit
process in which they post bond to pay for the animal to be held or forfeit the animal to an
animal control agency. According to testimony before the Senate Committee on Civil Rights,
Judiciary, and Public Safety, many courts require the defendant's arraignment in the animal
cruelty or neglect case before the bond-or-forfeit process can occur, but defendants in these
cases often avoid arraignment, resulting in no bond-or-forfeit process. Testimony also
indicates that prosecutors may be unwilling to prosecute a civil bond-or-forfeit case alongside
the criminal animal cruelty or neglect case. The current system burdens animal control
agencies because animals are held as evidence for criminal proceedings that can last months.
This results in impounded animals overcrowding facilities at the expense of taxpayers if the
animal control or shelter is publicly-funded. It has been suggested that Michigan's current
bond-or-forfeit process be modified to require a defendant in an animal cruelty or neglect
case either to post funds before criminal proceedings to prevent forfeiture of the animal or to
forfeit the animal, reducing long-term burden on animal control agencies and saving taxpayer
money.
CONTENT
Senate Bill 657 (S-1) and Senate Bill 658 (S-1), taken together, would amend
Chapter IX (Animals) of the Michigan Penal Code to do the following:
-- Modify provisions allowing a court to order a defendant to pay restitution as part
of a sentence for certain violations of Chapter IX.
-- Prohibit an animal that was the victim of abuse and was seized by an animal
control agency from being returned to its owner or possessor if the owner or
possessor were alleged to have violated Chapter IX and require the animal to be
taken to a local animal control agency.
-- Require a court to award the animal to the animal control agency for evaluation
and disposition if the owner or possessor were convicted under Chapter IX.
-- Require an animal control agency taking custody of an animal to give notice
within 72 hours of seizing the animal.
-- Require a notice to include, among other things, a statement that the animal's
owner or possessor could post a security deposit or bond that could prevent the
forfeiture of the animal during the criminal, forfeiture, or other court proceeding
until the court made a final determination regarding the animal's disposition.
-- Specify that a request for a hearing within 14 days after the date on the notice
would prevent forfeiture of the animal until the court decided whether the
requirement to post a security deposit or bond was justified, whether the amount
of the security deposit or bond was fair and reasonable, or both.
-- Specify that a court could not find that bond was justified if the owner or
possessor were indigent or had substantial financial hardship and allow a court
Page 1 of 8 sb657/658/2324
 to forego a bond or set a reasonable bond amount based on an owner's or
possessor's ability to pay.
-- Allow a prosecuting attorney to initiate a civil action in the final determination
of criminal charges to request the court to issue a forfeiture of the animal.
-- Require an animal control agency that had custody of a seized animal to hold it
for 14 consecutive days beginning on the date notice was given, and specify that
if the owner or possessor had not posted a security deposit or bond or requested
a hearing within the 14-day period, the animal would be forfeited and the animal
agency could dispose of the animal by adoption, transfer to another animal
control agency, or humane euthanasia.
-- Specify that if the owner or possessor that posted a security deposit or bond
were found not guilty in the criminal action, the amount of the security deposit
or bond posted to prevent disposition if unused for the animal's cost of care could
be returned to the owner or possessor, and the animal would have to be returned
to the owner.
-- Allow an animal control agency, after receiving a seized animal, to humanely
euthanize it or have it euthanized under certain circumstances.
-- Allow an animal control agency that received an animal to apply to the district
court or municipal court for a hearing to determine whether the animal would
have to be humanely euthanized because of its lack of any useful purpose or the
public safety threat it posed.
Section 50 (Senate Bill 657 (S-1)) of the Penal Code prohibits the owner, possessor, breeder,
operator of a pet shop, or person having the charge or custody of an animal from doing any
of the following:
-- Failing to provide an animal with adequate care.
-- Cruelly driving, working, or beating an animal, or causing an animal to be cruelly driven,
worked, or beaten.
-- Carrying or causing to be carried in or upon a vehicle or otherwise any live animal having
the feet or legs tied together, other than an animal being transported for medical care or
a horse whose feet are hobbled to protect the horse during transport, or in any other cruel
and inhumane manner.
-- Carrying or causing to be carried a live animal in or upon a vehicle or otherwise without
providing a secure space, rack, car, crate, or cage in which livestock may stand and in
which all other animals may stand, turn around, and lie down during transportation, or
while awaiting slaughter.
-- Abandoning an animal or causing an animal to be abandoned, in any place, without making
provisions for the animal's adequate care, unless premises are vacated for the protection
of human life or the prevention of injury to a human.
-- Negligently allowing any animal, including one who is aged, diseased, maimed, hopelessly
sick, disabled, or nonambulatory to suffer unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain.
-- Tethering a dog unless the tether is at least three times the length of the dog as measured
from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail and is attached to a harness or nonchoke
collar designed for tethering.
Section 50b (Senate Bill 658 (S-1)) prohibits a person from doing any of the following without
just cause:
-- Knowingly killing, torturing, mutilating, maiming, or disfiguring an animal.
-- Committing a reckless act knowing or having reason to know that the act will cause an
animal to be killed, tortured, mutilated, maimed, or disfigured.
Page 2 of 8 sb657/658/2324
-- Knowingly administering poison to an animal, or knowingly exposing an animal to any
poisonous substance, with the intent that the substance be taken or swallowed by the
animal.
-- Violating or threatening to violate any of the prohibitions described above with intent to
cause mental suffering or distress to a person or to exert control over a person.
Violations of Sections 50 or 50b constitute various misdemeanors or felonies punishable by
certain prescribed terms of imprisonment or a fine, or both.
As part of a sentence for a violation of Sections 50 or 50b, a court may order the defendant
to pay the costs of the prosecution, and the costs of the care, housing, and veterinary medical
care, for the animal victim, as applicable.
Instead, under the bills, as part of a sentence for a violation of Sections 50 or 50b, a court
could order the defendant to pay restitution including the costs of the investigation of the
violation, the costs of the prosecution, and the costs of seizure, care, housing, veterinary
medical care, and disposition of the animal victim, as applicable. The costs of the seizure,
care, housing, veterinary care, and disposition of the animal could not be included in the
sentence if they were paid previously by the defendant with a security deposit or bond.
"Disposition of the animal victim" would include the transfer, euthanasia, or adoption of the
animal.
Currently, if an animal is being held while the outcome of a criminal action charging a violation
of the Sections is pending, Section 50 generally prescribes a process by which a prosecuting
attorney may file a civil action to request that a court order the forfeiture of an animal to an
animal control shelter or animal protection shelter to a licensed veterinarian. Senate Bill 657
would delete these provisions.
Under both bills, except as otherwise provided, an animal that was a victim of Sections 50 or
50b and was seized by an animal control agency pending the outcome of a criminal action
that charged a violation of these provisions could not be returned to the owner or possessor
of the animal if the owner or possessor of the animal were alleged to have violated Sections
50 or 50b. A seized animal would have to be taken to a local animal control agency or local
animal control agency's designee. A service animal that was a victim could be seized by an
animal control agency at the animal control agency's discretion taking into consideration the
totality of the circumstances. If an animal owner or possessor were convicted of violating
Sections 50 or 50b, a court would have to award the animal involved in the violation to the
animal control agency for evaluation and disposition.
"Animal control agency" would mean an animal control shelter, an animal protection shelter,
or a law enforcement agency. "Animal control shelter" and "animal protection shelter" would
mean those terms as defined in Public Act (PA) 287 of 1969, which governs pet shops, animal
control shelters, and animal protection shelters. (Under PA 287, "animal control shelter"
means a facility operated by a municipality for the impoundment and care of animals that are
found in the streets or at large, animals that are otherwise held due to the violation of a
municipal ordinance or State law, or animals that are surrendered to the animal control
shelter. "Animal protection shelter" means a facility operated by a person, humane society,
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other nonprofit organization for the
care of homeless animals.)
(Section 50 defines "animal control shelter as a facility operated by a county, city, village, or
township to impound and care for animals found in streets or otherwise at large contrary to
an ordinance of the county, city, village, or township or State law. "Animal protection shelter"
means a facility operated by a person, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty
Page 3 of 8 sb657/658/2324
to animals, or any other nonprofit organization, for the care of homeless animals. The bill
would delete these definitions.)
An animal control agency taking custody of an animal would have to give notice within 72
hours of seizing the animal in person or by registered mail to the last known address of the
animal's owner if the owner of the animal were known. If the owner of the animal were
unknown, the animal control agency taking custody of an animal would have to give notice
within 72 hours after seizing the animal by one of the following methods:
-- Posting at the location of the seizure.
-- Delivery to an individual residing at the location of the seizure.
-- Registered mail to the location of the seizure.
The notice would have to include all the following:
-- A description of each animal seized.
-- The time, date, location, and description of circumstances under which the animal was
seized.
-- The address and telephone number of the location where or under what animal control
agency's authority the animal was being held and contact information for the individual
present at that location from whom security deposit or bond information could be
obtained.
-- A statement that the owner or possessor of the animal could post a security deposit or
bond that could prevent the forfeiture of the animal during the criminal, forfeiture, or other
court proceeding until the court made a final determination regarding the animal's
disposition, that failure to post a security deposit or bond within 14 days after the date on
the notice would result in forfeiture of the animal, and that the owner or possessor of the
animal could, before the 14-day period expired, request a hearing from the court with
jurisdiction over the alleged violation of Section 50b on whether the requirement to post
a security deposit or bond was justified, whether the cost associated with the security
deposit or bond was fair and reasonable for the care of and provision for the seized animal,
or both.
-- A statement that the owner or possessor of the animal was responsible for all costs
described in the bill, unless the court determined that the seizure of the animal was not
substantially justified by law.
A request for a hearing within 14 days after the date on the notice would prevent forfeiture
of the animal until the court decided whether the requirement to post a security deposit or
bond was justified, whether the amount of the security deposit or bond was fair and
reasonable, or both. Notice of a request for a hearing would have to be served on the animal
control agency holding the animal before the 14-day period expired. A hearing on whether
the requirement to post a security deposit or bond was justified, whether the amount of the
security deposit or bond was fair and reasonable, or both, would have to be held within 21
days after the request for a hearing. The hearing would have to be before a judge without a
jury and the prosecuting attorney would have the burden to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that the bond was justified and reasonable.
If the court found that the prosecuting attorney had met its burden, that the security deposit
or bond were justified and reasonable, or both, the animal would be forfeited to the animal
control agency that seized the animal unless the owner or possessor of the animal posted the
security deposit or bond within 72 hours after the hearing. The court would have to find the
bond not justified if the owner or possessor were indigent or had substantial hardship. If the
owner or possessor were serving a sentence in a correctional institution or receiving
residential treatment in a mental health or substance abuse facility, the owner or possessor
Page 4 of 8 sb657/658/2324
would have to be presumed to have a substantial financial hardship. The court would have to
consider the owner's or possessor's ability to pay, including employment status, employment
history, and financial history. If the court found the bond was not reasonable based on the
owner's or possessor's ability to pay, the court could forego a bond and set a reasonable bond
amount.
"Indigent" would mean a defendant who receives personal public assistance, including under
the Food Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, or disability
insurance, resides in public housing, or earns an income less than 140% of the Federal poverty
guideline.
An owner's or possessor's failure to appear at a scheduled hearing would result in automatic
forfeiture of the animal to the animal control agency if the date of the scheduled hearing were
more than 14 days after the date on the notice. The testimony of a defendant at a hearing
described above would only be admissible against the defendant for the purpose of
impeachment or in a criminal prosecution for perjury. The testimony of a defendant would
not waive the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.
An animal control agency that held or was required to hold a seized animal would have to
hold the animal for a period of 14 consecutive days, including weekends and holidays,
beginning on the date notice was given. After the 14-day period expired, if the owner or a
possessor of the animal had not posted a security deposit or bond or requested a hearing,
the animal would be forfeited, and the animal control agency could dispose of the animal by
transfer to another animal control agency, humane euthanasia, or adoption.
The security deposit or bond would have to be in an amount sufficient to secure payment of
all costs during a 30-day period after examination of the animal by a licensed veterinarian.
The animal control agency would have to determine the amount of the security deposit or
bond within 72 hours after seizing the animal and would have to make the amount of the
security deposit or bond available to the owner or possessor of the animal upon request.
Unless the owner or possessor of the animal requested a hearing, he or she would have to
provide proof of the security deposit or bond to the animal control agency within 14 days after
the date on the notice.
An animal control agency that was holding or was required to hold a seized animal could draw
on a posted security deposit or bond to cover the actual reasonable costs incurred in the
seizure, care, keeping, and disposition of the animal from the date of the seizure to the date
of the official disposition of the animal in the criminal action.
If an animal were seized and were being held by an animal control agency's designee pending
the outcome of a criminal action charging a violation and the process described above was
not used, before final disposition of the criminal charge, the prosecuting attorney could file a
civil action in the court that had jurisdiction of the criminal action requesting that the court
issue an order to forfeit the animal to the animal control agency before final disposition of the
criminal charge. The prosecuting attorney would have to serve a true copy of the summons
and complaint on the defendant owner or possessor of the animal. On the filing of the civil
action, the court would have to set a hearing on the complaint. The hearing would have to be
conducted within 21 days of the filing of the civil action. The hearing would have to be before
a judge without a jury.<