Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS THAT WERE TORTURED,
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
ABUSED, NEGLECTED, OR ABANDONED
Analysis available at
Senate Bill 657 (S-1) as passed by the Senate http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Sen. Dayna Polehanki
Senate Bill 658 (S-1) as passed by the Senate
Sponsor: Sen. Paul Wojno
House Committee: Criminal Justice
Senate Committee: Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety
Complete to 11-11-24
SUMMARY:
Senate Bills 657 and 658 would respectively amend sections 50 and 50b of the Michigan Penal
Code, which prohibit animal neglect or cruelty and torturing or killing an animal (for a
description of those offenses, see Background, below). The bills would change the process
that applies to animals seized in such cases, among other things no longer requiring a
prosecuting attorney to initiate a separate civil action for forfeiture of a seized animal. The
process proposed by the bills would be similar to the one that applies for animal fighting
violations under section 49 of the code. As the current process and that proposed by the bills
are the same for both types of proceedings (that is, under both sections 50 and 50b), the bills
are described together below.
Currently, as part of the sentence for a violation of section 50 or 50b, the court can order a
defendant to pay the costs of the care, housing, and veterinary medical care for an animal, as
applicable. When an animal has been seized in a criminal case for a violation and is being held
by an animal control shelter, animal protection shelter, or veterinarian pending the case’s
outcome, the prosecutor can file a civil action requesting the court to issue an order forfeiting
the animal to the shelter or veterinarian before final disposition of the criminal charge. If the
prosecutor shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred, the animal must
be ordered forfeited unless the defendant posts a bond in an amount the court determines will
cover the costs to care for the animal from the time it was seized to the date of trial. An
additional bond amount can be ordered if necessary.
Under the bills, the court could order a defendant to pay restitution as part of the sentence for
a violation, which would include, as applicable, the costs of the investigation and prosecution
and the costs of the animal’s seizure, care, housing, veterinary medical care, and disposition
(e.g., its transfer, adoption, or euthanizing). Costs of the animal’s seizure, care, housing,
veterinary medical care, and disposition that were previously paid by the defendant with a
security deposit or bond as described below “should not” be included in the sentence.
An animal seized by an animal control agency pending the outcome of a criminal case
described above could not be returned to its owner or possessor if they are alleged to have
committed the violation. (However, if they are found not guilty, the animal would have to be
returned to them.) A seized animal would have to be taken to a local animal control agency or
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 6
 its designee. (A service animal could be seized by an animal control agency at the agency’s
discretion.) If the owner or possessor is convicted of the violation of section 50 or 50b, the
court would have to award the animal to the animal control agency for evaluation and
disposition.
Animal control agency would mean any of the following:
• An animal control shelter (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).
• An animal protection shelter (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).
• A law enforcement agency.
An animal control agency that takes custody of an animal would have to give notice of the
seizure within 72 hours either in person or by registered mail to the last known address of the
animal’s owner, if known. If the owner is unknown, the agency would have to give notice on
the same time frame by posting it at, or sending it by registered mail to, the location of the
seizure or by delivering it to someone who resides there. The notice would have to include all
of the following:
• A description of each animal seized.
• The time, date, and location, and a description of the circumstances, of the animal’s
seizure.
• The address and phone number where the animal is being held and contact information
for someone there who can provide security deposit or bond information.
• A statement of the following:
o That the animal’s owner or possessor can post a security deposit or bond that
may prevent forfeiture of the animal for the duration of the criminal, forfeiture,
or other court proceeding until the court makes a final determination regarding
the animal’s disposition.
o That failure to post a security deposit or bond within 14 days after the date on
the notice will result in forfeiture of the animal.
o That the owner or possessor may, before the end of the 14-day period, request
a hearing from the court on whether the requirement for a security deposit or
bond is justified or whether its amount is fair and reasonable, or both.
• A statement that the owner or possessor is responsible for the costs of the investigation
and prosecution and the costs of the animal’s seizure, care, housing, veterinary care,
and disposition, unless the court determines that the animal’s seizure was not
substantially justified by law.
A timely request for a hearing would prevent forfeiture of the animal until the court determines
whether the requirement for a security deposit or bond is justified or whether its amount is fair
and reasonable, or both. Notice of a hearing request would have to be served on the relevant
animal control agency before the end of the 14-day period described above. A hearing would
have to be held within 21 days of the request. The hearing would be before a judge without a
jury. The prosecuting attorney would have the burden to establish by a preponderance of the
House Fiscal Agency SBs 657 (S-1) and 658 (S-1) Page 2 of 6
 evidence that the bond 1 is justified. If the court finds that the security deposit or bond is justified
and reasonable, or both, the animal’s owner or possessor would have 72 hours after the hearing
to post the required security deposit or bond or the animal would be forfeited to the animal
control agency.
If the owner or possessor is indigent or has a substantial financial hardship, the court would
have to find that the bond is not justified. (An owner or possessor who is serving a sentence in
a correctional institution or receiving residential treatment in a mental health or substance
abuse facility would be rebuttably presumed to have a substantial financial hardship.) The court
would have to consider the owner’s or possessor’s ability to pay, including their employment
status, employment history, and financial history. If the court finds that the bond is not
reasonable based on the owner’s or possessor’s ability to pay, the court could “forego” a bond
or 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, who resides in public housing, or who earns an
income less than 140% of the federal poverty guideline.
The failure of an owner or possessor to appear at a scheduled hearing would result in automatic
forfeiture of the animal to the animal control agency as long as the date of the scheduled hearing
is more than 14 days after the date on the notice described above. The testimony of a defendant
at a hearing would be admissible against the defendant only for the purpose of impeachment
or in a criminal prosecution for perjury and would not waive the defendant’s constitutional
right against self-incrimination.
An animal control agency holding a seized animal would have to hold it for 14 consecutive
days, including weekends and holidays, beginning on the date notice was given as provided
above. If the owner or possessor of the animal has not posted a security deposit or bond or
requested a hearing by the end of those 14 days, the animal would be forfeited, and the animal
control agency could dispose of it by transfer to another animal control agency, adoption, or
humane euthanasia.
The security deposit or bond described above would have to be in an amount sufficient to
secure payment of all costs of the investigation and prosecution and the costs of the animal’s
seizure, care, housing, veterinary medical care, and disposition 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 no later than 72 hours after the seizure
of the animal and make the amount available to the owner or possessor upon request. Unless
the owner or possessor of the animal requests a hearing as described above, they would have
to provide proof of the security deposit or bond to the animal control agency not later than 14
days after the date on the notice described above.
If an animal is seized and is being held by an animal control agency or its designee pending
the outcome of a criminal action and the process described above is not used, the prosecutor
could file a civil action requesting the court to issue an order to forfeit the animal to the animal
control agency before final disposition of the criminal charge. The prosecutor would have to
1
It is unclear whether references to “bond” alone in these provisions still mean “security deposit or bond.”
House Fiscal Agency SBs 657 (S-1) and 658 (S-1) Page 3 of 6
 serve a true copy of the summons and complaint on the defendant owner or possessor. The
court would have to set a hearing on the complaint, to be conducted within 21 days of the filing
of the civil action. The hearing would be before a judge without a jury. At the hearing, the
prosecutor would have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a
violation of section 50 or 50b occurred. If the court finds that the prosecutor has met that burden
and that the amount of the security deposit or bond necessary to prevent the forfeiture of the
animal from the date of the seizure to 30 days after the date of the hearing is fair and reasonable
based on all costs of the investigation and prosecution and the costs of the animal’s seizure,
care, housing, veterinary medical care, and disposition, then the court would have to order
immediate forfeiture of the animal to the animal control agency unless the owner or possessor,
within 72 hours after the hearing, submits to the court clerk a security deposit or bond in a
sufficient amount to secure payment of all costs of the investigation and prosecution and the
costs of the animal’s seizure, care, housing, veterinary medical care, and disposition after
examination of the animal by a licensed veterinarian from the date of the seizure to the date of
the hearing and for an additional period of 30 days. Failure of the owner or possessor to post a
security deposit or bond within 72 hours after the hearing or to appear at a scheduled hearing
would result in automatic forfeiture of the animal to the animal control agency. As above, the
testimony of a defendant at a hearing would be admissible against the defendant only for the
purpose of impeachment or in a criminal prosecution for perjury and would not waive the
defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.
An animal control agency that holds a seized animal as provided in the bill could draw on a
security deposit or bond described above to cover the actual reasonable costs incurred for the
investigation and prosecution and for the animal’s seizure, care, housing, veterinary medical
care, and disposition from the date of the seizure to the date of the official disposition of the
animal in the criminal action.
If a security deposit or bond has been posted as described above, and trial in the criminal action
does not occur within the initial 30-day bond period or is continued to a later date, the owner
or possessor would have to post an additional security deposit or bond in an amount determined
sufficient to cover the costs of the investigation and prosecution and of the animal’s seizure,
care, housing, veterinary medical care, and disposition anticipated to be incurred by the animal
control agency caring for the animal. The additional security deposit or bond would have to be
calculated in 30-day increments and continue until the criminal action is resolved. If the owner
or possessor of the animal fails to post a new security deposit or bond before the previous
security deposit or bond expires, the animal would be forfeited to the animal control agency.
If an owner or possessor who posted a security deposit or bond is found not guilty in the
criminal action, the animal and any unused amount of the security deposit or bond must be
returned to the owner [or possessor?].
If a security deposit or bond is posted by an owner or possessor and the court determines that
the animal lacks any useful purpose or poses a threat to public safety, the posting of the security
deposit or bond would not prevent disposition of the animal.
An animal control agency that receives a seized animal could humanely euthanize it or have it
euthanized if, in the opinion of a licensed veterinarian, it is injured or diseased past recovery
or its continued existence is inhumane so that euthanasia is necessary to relieve pain and
suffering, regardless of whether a security deposit of bond has been posted.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 657 (S-1) and 658 (S-1) Page 4 of 6
 An animal control agency that receives a seized animal could apply to the district or municipal
court for a hearing to determine whether the animal must be humanely euthanized because of
its lack of any useful purpose or the public safety threat it poses. The court would have to hold
a hearing not later than 30 days after the application is filed and give notice of the hearing to
the owner [or possessor?] of the animal. Upon a finding by the court that the animal lacks any
useful purpose or poses a threat to public safety, the animal control agency would have to
humanely euthanize the animal or have the animal euthanized. Costs for the investigation and
prosecution and for the animal’s seizure, care, housing, veterinary medical care, and
disposition that are incurred by an animal control agency or any other person could, in the
court’s discretion, be assessed against the owner of the animal.
MCL 750.50 (SB 657)
MCL 750.50b (SB 658)
BACKGROUND:
Animal neglect or cruelty (section 50)
Senate Bill 657 would amend section 50 of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits an
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 on a vehicle or otherwise a live animal with its
feet or legs tied together (except for an animal being transported for medical care or a
horse whose feet are hobbled to protect it during transport) or in any other cruel and
inhumane manner.
• Carrying or causing to be carried a live animal in or on a vehicle or otherwise without
providing a secure space, rack, car, crate, or cage in which livestock can stand and in
which all other animals can stand, turn around, and lie down during transportation or
while awaiting slaughter. With regard to sled dogs, room to stand means sufficient
vertical distance to allow the animal to stand without its shoulders touching the top of
the crate or transportation vehicle.
• Abandoning an animal or causing it to be abandoned, in any place, without making
provisions for its adequate care, unless premises are vacated for the protection of
human life or the