“IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER” LEGAL DESIGNATION AND CONSEQUENCES: A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR ANIMAL OWNERS’ RIGHTS
San Marcos, California City Council is Poised to Vote on an Ordinance Amendment that Could Punish “Irresponsible Pet Owners” Disproportionately to the Offense
Most people can recount times when they have dealt with the effects of another’s irresponsible pet ownership. Some may have even thought “there ought to be a law.” Most of the time there are already laws on the books against the irresponsible acts of pet owners. Nevertheless, on October 23, San Marcos City Council is poised to approve the second reading of an ordinance amendment that would punish irresponsible pet owners with the seizure and forfeiture of all the person’s animals down to the last guppy.
A careful look at the proposed amendment reveals why this legislation allows for disproportionate punishment. It starts with the definition of an irresponsible owner as a person who has had three or more citations issued against them by the Animal Control Authority within the previous two years. The citations may be issued for violations of the following sections of the municipal code: animals at large, wild animals, public protection from animals, possession of guard dog, public nuisance animal or dangerous animal, public nuisance, declaration of dangerous animal, or any other provision under Title 6 as determined by the Animal Control Authority. As any violation of any provision of Title 6 is either an infraction for which citations are issued or a misdemeanor; trivial offenses could result in the seizure and forfeiture of all of the person’s animals. Amended Section 6.04.030 (e) authorizes that a convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals of any kind for up to three years or longer if ordered by a court. This section allows one to infer that the amendment does not require court involvement if the punishment does not exceed three years. Many animal owners may not have the legal sophistication or the means to challenge an administrative procedure or understand the legislative overreach of this amendment.
There is another devilish detail of the amendment. The punitive measures go far beyond prohibiting ownership. The prohibition on the care of animals can have employment consequences for those who work in an animal related field. Veterinarians, animal control officers, shelter workers, groomers are just a few people at risk for losing their livelihood simply because they acquired a particularly inventive puppy that should have been named Houdini. It would be a travesty of justice if a pet owner lost their job and a puppy lost his home simply because it kept coming up with ingenious ways to escape the backyard. The innocent goldfish sharing his home would also be forfeit. This is especially egregious if the owners were diligent about cutting off each method of escape as it was discovered.
There is great potential for abuse of the proposed amendment and disproportionate punishment for mere infractions or irresponsibility. California law already provides for forfeiture and time-limited prohibitions on care, custody, and ownership of animals for serious crimes involving animals. These state laws allow for court discretion and mitigation. This amended ordinance would allow for the city to remove court involvement for punishments of the same severity for up to three years for actions much less serious in nature and for which convictions are not expressly required. San Marcos should remove the irresponsible pet ownership provisions.
*****
Editor’s Note, November 10, 2018:
At its October 23, 2018 meeting, the San Marcos City Council unanimously approved (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: JABARA, JONES, JENKINS, ORLANDO, DESMOND) the Consent Calendar including Item 4, ORDINANCE NO. 2018‐1467 ‐ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SAN MARCOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 6.04, 6.08, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.28 AND 6.32 AND REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 6.24 RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL. Approved the second reading of an ordinance amending San Marcos Municipal Code Chapters 6.04, 6.08, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.28 and 6.32, and repealing and replacing Chapter 6.24 relating to animal control.