DANGEROUS ANIMALS & DOGS S.B. 683 (S-1) & 684:
SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTE BILL
IN COMMITTEE
Senate Bill 683 (Substitute S-1)
Senate Bill 684 (as introduced 1-11-24)
Sponsor: Senator Sean McCann
Committee: Natural Resources and Agriculture
Date Completed: 2-28-24
INTRODUCTION
The bills would separate the process to file a complaint against a dangerous animal and a
dangerous dog, establishing specific hearing processes and procedures for complaints
regarding dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs. Following a hearing and
determination, a court could order a dangerous dog to be relinquished to an animal control
department or euthanized. A court could determine that a dangerous dog did not have to be
euthanized, but the owner of such a dog would have to comply with specific confinement and
restraint requirements, in addition to the requirements for a potentially dangerous dog. The
owner of a dog determined potentially dangerous would have to sterilize the dog, notify
certain entities of the determination, and comply with confinement and restraint
requirements. An owner of a potentially dangerous dog or dangerous dog also would have to
register and tag the dog as dangerous. An animal control department would have to maintain
a list of registered dogs in its jurisdiction. Additionally, the bills would prescribe criminal
penalties for failing to comply with the proposed requirements for a dangerous or potentially
dangerous dog.
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
(This section does not provide a comprehensive account of previous legislative efforts on this subject matter.)
Senate Bills 683 and 684 are reintroductions of Senate Bills 510 and 511, respectively, of the
2021-2022 Legislative Session and Senate Bills 1232 and 1231, respectively, of the 2020-
2021 Legislative Session.
BRIEF FISCAL IMPACT
The bills likely would have a minimal fiscal impact on the State and municipalities. Minimal
administrative costs for courts and municipalities would be likely, while State costs for
incarcerations are possible, to a minor degree. Fee and fine revenue would likely balance
State and local expenses. The bills would have a moderate fiscal impact, dependent upon the
number of conditions and events fostering the utilization of the bills' provisions, on local
governments that operate animal shelters and the Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MDARD).
MCL 287.321 et al. (S.B. 683) Legislative Analyst: Eleni Lionas
777.12m (S.B. 684) Fiscal Analyst: Bruce R. Baker
Bobby Canell
Joe Carrasco, Jr.
Michael Siracuse
Page 1 of 8 sb683/684/2324
CONTENT
Senate Bill 683 (S-1) would amend Public Act 426 of 1988, which governs
confinement and destruction of dangerous animals, to do the following:
-- Separate the complaint and hearing procedure for a dangerous animal and
dangerous dog.
-- Create a procedure to file a sworn complaint against a potentially dangerous or
dangerous dog and prescribe the hearing process.
-- Require an owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog to show cause at
a hearing as to why the dog should not be considered as such.
-- If a dog presented an immediate public threat, allow a court to order an animal
control department or law enforcement to impound a dog at the owner's expense
until a hearing was held.
-- Allow a court that found a dog to be dangerous to require relinquishment of the
dog to an animal control department or euthanasia of the dog.
-- Require a court that found a dog to be potentially dangerous to order the owner
to comply with certain vaccination, notification, and confinement requirements.
-- Require the owner of a potentially dangerous dog to notify the animal control
department if the dog were loose, had been sold, had died, or had attacked an
individual or animal.
-- Require dangerous dogs to be registered with the animal control department for
a fee of at least $100 annually and to wear a "dangerous dog" tag.
-- Prohibit the owner of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog from
transferring ownership of the dog.
-- Require animal control departments to maintain a list of dangerous dogs and the
registration of such dogs.
-- Prescribe a felony penalty for an owner who failed to comply with the proposed
requirements of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog.
Senate Bill 684 would amend the sentencing guidelines in the Code of Criminal
Procedure to include a failure to comply with Senate Bill 683's provisions regarding
potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs as a Class G felony against a person with
a maximum sentence of four years' imprisonment.
Senate Bill 684 is tie-barred to Senate Bill 683. Senate Bill 683 is described in greater detail
below.
Dangerous Animals and Dogs, Defined
Currently, "dangerous animal" means a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or
a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other
dog is on the property under the control of its owner. The term does not include any of the
following:
-- An animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of
the animal's owner.
-- An animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal.
-- An animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would
conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity of
an assault.
-- Livestock.
Under the bill, "dangerous animal" would mean an animal other than a dog that bites or
attacks an individual or domestic animal and would not include the animals currently not
included as described above. "Animal" would mean any vertebrate other than a human being.
Page 2 of 8 sb683/684/2324
"Dangerous dog" would mean at least one of the following:
-- A dog that has been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog and whose owner has
been given notice that the dog is dangerous if the dog bites, attacks or threatens the
safety of an individual or domestic animal or if the owner maintains the dog in violation of
the Act.
-- A dog that kills or inflicts severe injury on an animal without provocation.
-- A dog that kills livestock or a domestic animal without provocation, if the dog is not on its
owner's real property.
-- A dog that has committed at least three reported documented bites on an individual or
domestic animal without provocation.
A dog would not be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous, including a dog that was
determined so by a court, if the dog threatened, injured, or damaged an individual, domestic
animal, or property under at least one of the following circumstances:
-- The individual was committing a willful trespass or other unlawful conduct on the owner's
real property.
-- The individual was intentionally provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, its
owner, or a family member of the owner.
-- The individual was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
-- A domestic animal was attacking or menacing the dog.
-- An animal was attacking or menacing the dog while on the owner's real property.
-- The dog was responding to pain or injury or protecting its offspring.
-- The dog was protecting or defending an individual within the immediate vicinity of the dog
from an attack or assault.
-- The dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the owner's
real property or under the control of its owner, and the injury or damage was to a species
or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.
Subject to the provision described above, "potentially dangerous dog" would mean at least
one of the following:
-- A dog that has a known propensity or disposition, as indicated by sworn statements from
at least two adults and an investigation by an appropriate authority, to attack without
provocation and in a menacing fashion or to threaten the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
-- A dog that has inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, and that domestic animal was
on or chased from the owner's real property or was otherwise under the control of its
owner, if the dog inflicted the injury while on property other than its owner's real property.
-- A dog that bites an individual without provocation and inflicts a severe injury upon that
individual.
"Dog" would mean a domestic dog of any age of the species Canis lupus familiaris.
"Attack" means the deliberate act of an animal, whether in response to a command by its
owner, to bite, seize with its teeth, or pursue an individual or domestic animal with the intent
to kill, wound, injure, or harm.
"Domestic animal" would mean a dog, cat, or any other animal that is kept, bred, bought, or
sold, and is considered by the owner to be a pet.
Currently, "livestock" means animals used for human food and or fiber or animals used for
service to human beings including cattle, swine, sheep, llamas, goats, bison, equine, poultry,
and rabbits. The term does not include animals that are human companions, such as dogs
and cats. Instead under the bill, the term would not include domestic animals.
Page 3 of 8 sb683/684/2324
"Owner" means a person who owns or harbors a dog or other animal. Under the bill, "owner"
would mean an individual who owns, harbors, keeps, possesses, or has control or custody of
a dog or other animal.
"Owner's real property" would mean real property owned or leased by the owner of a dog or
other animal. The term would not include a public right-of-way or a common area of a
condominium complex, manufactured home park, apartment complex, or townhouse
development.
"Provoke" means to perform a willful act or omission that an ordinary and reasonable person
would conclude is likely to precipitate the bite or an attack by an ordinary dog or animal.
Instead, the term would mean to perform a willful act or omission that an ordinary and
reasonable person would conclude is likely to precipitate an attack by a dog or other animal.
"Serious injury" means permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or
serious impairment of a bodily function of a person. The bill would delete this term and would
instead refer to "severe injuries". "Severe injury" would mean physical injury that results in
broken bones, muscle tears, multiple bite wounds, or disfiguring lacerations and requires
multiple surgeries or corrective or cosmetic surgery.
"Without provocation" would mean that a victim was acting lawfully and peacefully at the time
the victim was bitten, attacked, or threatened, or chased in a menacing fashion by a dog.
Complaint of a Dangerous Animal
Currently, if a sworn complaint alleges that an animal is a dangerous animal and it has caused
serious injury or death to a person or dog, a district court magistrate, district court, or
municipal court, must issue a summons to the owner ordering the owner to appear and show
cause as to why the animal should not be destroyed. Under the bill, this provision would apply
to a dangerous animal that caused severe injury or death to an individual or domestic animal.
Upon the filing of the complaint, the court must order the owner to turn the animal over to
be retained until the hearing is held and a decision is made for the disposition of the animal.
After a hearing, if the animal is found to be a dangerous animal that caused serious injury or
death to an individual or dog, the court must issue the destruction of the animal, at the
owner's expense.
After a hearing, if the animal has been previously adjudicated a dangerous animal or is found
to be a dangerous animal that did not cause serious injury or death to an individual but is
likely to cause serious injury or death to an individual in the future, the court may order the
owner to have the animal destroyed. The bill specifies that this provision would apply to a
dangerous animal that did not cause severe injury or death to an individual or domestic animal
but was likely to cause severe injury or death to a domestic animal or individual in the future.
The Act requires a court that finds that an animal is a dangerous animal that has not caused
severe injury or death to an individual to order the owner to sterilize the animal, obtain and
maintain liability insurance coverage, or take any action appropriate to protect the public. The
bill specifies that this provision would apply to a dangerous animal that did not cause severe
injury or death to an individual or domestic animal.
Also, a court finding that an animal is a dangerous animal as described above must order the
owner of a dangerous animal of the Canis lupus familiaris species to have a permanent
identification number assigned to the animal. The bill would delete this provision.
The owner of a dangerous animal that causes the death of a person is guilty of involuntary
manslaughter. If a dangerous animal attacks a person and causes serious injury other than
Page 4 of 8 sb683/684/2324
death, the owner of the animal is guilty of a felony punishable by up to four years'
imprisonment and a minimum civil fine of $2,000 or community service work for a minimum
of 500 hours, or any combination of the penalties.
The owner of the previously adjudicated animal that attacks or bites and causes injury that is
not a serious injury is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days' imprisonment, a
fine of between $250 and $500, or at least 240 hours of community service, or any
combination of these penalties. Under the bill, the penalty provisions described above would
instead refer to a dangerous animal not including a dangerous dog.
Complaint of Dangerous Dog
Under the bill, upon the filing of a sworn complaint that a dog was dangerous or potentially
dangerous, a district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court would have to do the
following:
-- Issue a summons to the owner, ordering the owner to appeal to show cause why the dog
should not be considered a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog at a time and place
specified in the summons.
-- If the dog posed an immediate threat to public safety, order that the animal control
department or law enforcement agency impound the dog, at the owner's expense, until a
hearing was held, and a decision was made for the disposition of the dog.
"Animal control department" means an animal control shelter as that term is defined in
Section 1 of 1969 Public Act 287 (which regulates animal control shelters, animal protection
shelters, and pet shops): 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. "Impound" would mean to seize and take into the custody of an animal
control department.
After a hearing, if the court found that a dog was potentially dangerous the court would have
to order the owner to do all the following:
-- Have the dog sterilized and vaccinated for rabies.
-- Obtain a license for the dog.
-- Within 30 days, after the court issued its findings, give written notice of the finding to the
local branch of the United States Post Office and all utility companies that provided service
to the owner's real property.
-- Disclose the finding in writing to each provider of service or treatment to the dog.
-- While on the owner's real property, keep the dog indoors or in a secured fenced yard from
which the dog could not escape and into which children could not trespass.
-- While outside the owner's real property, keep the dog under control of a responsible adult
and restrained on a leash that was no longer than six feet.
"Provider of service or treatment" would include a veterinarian, a dog groomer, a staff
member of a humane society or other animal welfare agency, an animal care facility worker,
and a professional dog handler or trainer.
Except for in a case where a court found a dog to be dangerous but did not order the dog to
be euthanized, after a hearing if the district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court
found that a dog was a dangerous dog and if the release of the dog would pose a significant
threat to public health, safety, or welfare, the court would have to order at least one of the
following, and in addition, could prohibit the owner from owning, possessing, controlling, or
having custody of any dog for a time period of up to three years:
Page 5 of 8 sb683/684/2324
-- The owner to relinquish the dog to the animal control department.
-- The animal control department to euthanize the dog.
If the court found that the dog was a dangerous dog but did not order the dog to be
euthanized, the district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court would have to order
the owner to do all the following:
-- Complete the owner requirements following a hearing.
-- Have a veterinarian implant the dog with a microchip.
-- While on the owner's real property, confine the dog indoors or in a securely enclosed and
locked structure of a sufficient height and design to prevent the dog's escape or direct
contact with or entry by an individual or other animal, and that was designed to provide
shelter from the elements.
Additionally, the court would have to order the owner to do the following while outside of the
owner's real property:
-- Ensure that the dog was wearing a muzzle that prevented the dog from biting an individual
or another animal, but that did not injure the dog or interfere w