WA State Addresses the Financial Cost of Animal Abuse
- seattleanimalwatch
- May 22, 2023
- 3 min read
Updated: Jul 28, 2023
How Does It Compare to Seattle?
The quick take:
Washington State Governor Inslee signed substitute House Bill 1234 on May 4, 2023. The new law has two main pieces:
It authorizes the immediate seizure of neglected or abused animals and requires that a bond be posted to help cover costs while the injured animals recover. If a bond is not posted by the owner within 14 days, the animals are deemed abandoned.
The owner of seized animals may petition for the return of seized animals. A standardized petition form is attached to the bill.
Dive deeper:
Animal control agencies are responsible for the daily care and health of animals. Veterinarian bills, food, medicine, rehabilitation and other costs add up when an owner refuses to surrender animals seized during an investigation. This legislation requires the owner to give up the animals if a bond is not posted within 14 days. (Note: the owner can petition for a longer period if the petitioner did not receive actual notice of the seizure and the court finds a compelling circumstance for the extension.) The stated purpose of the legislation is to minimize costs incurred by animal care agencies when accused abusers retain ownership of animals that are receiving services. For example, the City of Seattle recently lost over $450,000 in fees assessed against a defendant for care of his injured and neglected animals while he awaited trial. He was ultimately required to pay only $29,100 of $487,000 costs incurred by the Seattle Animal Shelter. At that time, no bond or surrender was required.
If an accused does not meet the 14 day bond requirement, the seized animals are characterized as “abandoned” by operation of law. This means there is an automatic and legal change in ownership - no hearing or other petition is required. The new legislation explicitly states that normal civil forfeiture laws do not apply in this situation. The animal care agency can then move forward with rehabilitation and adoption plans. In addition, if the bond money is spent and animals are still in care, the owner must post a new bond within 72 hours or forfeit the animals.
Finally, there are provisions in the bill that address the wrongful seizure of animals and what an owner can do in that situation.
Compare:
In October 2022, Seattle City Council passed Ordinance # 126691. It amended SMC 9.25 and clarified the City’s animal forfeiture laws. Here, the City requires a court order for forfeiture if any animals seized have died or treatment by the accused is “severe and likely to reoccur”. If the defendant is convicted or enters a plea agreement, the defendant must pay all reasonable costs incurred while caring for the forfeited animals. The accused cannot own, care for, possess or live with animals for two years after a first conviction. A second or subsequent conviction results in a permanent prohibition against owning or living with animals. The new language in SMC 9.25 also allows an offender to petition for restoration of animal ownership rights. The new Ordinance sets out the criteria the court may use, including severity of past abuse and whether prior conviction conditions are complete.
In sum, Seattle’s statutory changes concentrate on animal ownership rights, while the state’s new language in RCW 16.52 concentrates on recovery of expenses incurred by agencies caring for animals and ownership rights that flow from bond payments. SMC 9.25 now requires forfeiture of animals (by operation of court order) if one dies, while RCW 16.52 requires forfeiture if a bond is not paid and is automatic.
At the time of this writing, it is unclear which law would take precedence in an animal cruelty case. The RCW specifically deals with felonies while the SMC addresses misdemeanors (the Seattle City Attorney can only prosecute misdemeanors while felonies are referred to King County for prosecution.)
We assume that the City of Seattle’s amendments are the result of the afore-mentioned case that resulted in more than $450,000 in lost fees. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle proposed and passed its amendments with no public hearing or even public announcement. We do not even know who proposed the amendments. There was no media coverage.