Last week, the New Jersey Assembly passed S.981, a “cost of care” bill that raises serious constitutional concerns for dog owners. The bill is now on its way to Governor Phil Murphy for his approval or veto. The American Kennel Club (AKC) urges all concerned New Jersey dog owners contact Governor Murphy’s office to request a veto of this egregious bill.
BACKGROUND
AKC abhors animal cruelty, and shares in the goals of ensuring that animal control agencies receive adequate public funding to achieve their public mandates. New Jersey already has a law that provides an easy and fair process for animal control agencies, including shelters and rescues, to be paid for taking care of animals that are seized for alleged cruelty or neglect. That law also provides for the forfeiture of animals upon a defendant being found guilty of, or liable for, an animal cruelty violation.
WHAT’S AT ISSUE?
Plainly speaking, the legislative intent behind S.981 is to protect the businesses of shelters and rescues. In doing so, the bills would abandon interests of reasonableness, fairness, and equity for people under the law. They would even disregard constitutional requirements that protect all U.S. citizens, including New Jersey residents, from overreaching enforcement powers. Here’s how:
ACCELLERATED TIMELINES, WEAKENED BURDENS OF PROOF
First, S.981 would allow for costs to be assessed much earlier than is currently permitted and would weaken the burdens of proof required for such assessments.
Under current law, a person is automatically required to pay for all reasonable costs incurred by shelters and rescues in providing care of a seized animal after they are found guilty of, or liable for, treating an animal cruelly. This means that the state has to meet one of the toughest burdens of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) before a person is penalized with some of the most serious penalties under the law, including jail time, fines, and/or forfeiture of property.
In stark contrast, S.981 would instead allow for shelters and rescues to ask a court for funding immediately upon taking custody of an animal, well before any finding of guilt may occur. The bill would also require a court to award funding based on a significantly weakened burden of proof (a preponderance of evidence), not that a crime was committed, but that a complaint has certain content and been properly served on the person.
Assuming those dumbed-down burdens would be met, S.981 would lead several big problems under the new law.
HAMSTRINGS COURTS FROM CONSIDERING A DEFENDANT’S FINANCES, PROVIDES FOR AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE OF OWNERSHIP, FAILS TO PROTECT INNOCENT DEFENDANTS
As stated before, the harshest penalties under the law are usually reserved for those who have been found guilty of committing a crime. Losing ownership of one’s property is one of those harsh types of penalties. S.981 would not permit a court to consider a defendant’s ability to pay for assessed costs, and would provide for the automatic forfeiture of an animal if a defendant cannot pay, well before any finding of guilt.
This is problematic because it would effectively eliminate procedural due process protections in such cases. Defendants with limited means would be denied ownership of their property not because of being found guilty of a crime, but for being poor. This would happen well before a trial, and state courts would be powerless to do anything about the law depriving an individual of their property under these circumstances.
CO-OWNERSHIPS ARE NOT PROTECTED
S.981 also does not protect co-ownership rights. The bill explicitly limits the persons from whom funding costs could be assessed against either owners in possession of a dog at the time of seizure, or a person from who the dogs are seized (if not the owner).
Co-ownerships are common relationships in the competitive purebred dog world. Under S.981, a co-owner’s interest in a seized animal may only be considered after a defendant has been convicted, which is significantly later in the process than when a defendant would be afforded the opportunity to protect their ownership interests (at a pre-trial hearing). This difference is significant because a co-owner would not be afforded the opportunity to also pay for costs at the same time a defendant could, effectively denying due process of co-owners.
Additionally, if during the trial process, a defendant failed to pay assessed costs, all ownership would be automatically forfeited and awarded to the shelter or rescue, regardless of a co-owner’s interest. This would raise concerns that the law erroneously deprives co-owners of their property.
CLAIMS THAT DOGS NEED TO BE PRESERVED AS EVIDENCE ARE MERITLESS
As an excuse to not consider co-owners’ interests earlier in the trial process , proponents of S.981 have made claims that shelters and rescues need to have possession of the animals during a trial so that evidence of alleged crimes may be preserved. This argument is without merit.
Animals are ever-changing; and those that are cared for through feeding, watering, grooming, and exercising, much less moved from one location to another, are substantively changed and not preserved like inanimate evidence would be. Photographs, videos, and eyewitness accounts taken at the scene of alleged cruel treatment, along with veterinary records and the information used to establish probable cause, are reliable types of evidence that can be successfully used to establish cruelty.
Additionally, by allowing for the automatic transfer of ownership to a shelter or rescue and not prohibiting them from further transferring or adopting them out while a trial progresses, S981 is clearly not concerned with the preservation of evidence through possession of the animal.
SAMPLE TEXT/PHONE SCRIPT TO USE WHEN CONTACTING GOVERNOR MURPHY:
Subject: Please Veto Unconstitutional S.981
Text: “My name is [first name, last name], I’m from [city/town, New Jersey], and I’m contacting you to respectfully request veto of S.981, which seeks to protect the businesses of animal shelters and rescues without requiring consideration of the rights of animal owners. Current New Jersey law already provides an easy and fair process of shelters and rescues to be paid for taking care of animals seized for alleged cruelty or neglect. (See 4:22-17.7)
Additionally, while current law allows for forfeiture of seized animals upon a conviction for animal cruelty, S.981 would provide for the automatic forfeiture of seized animals via a new pre-trial timeline. S.981 would not allow courts to consider whether the person from whom the animals were seized is ultimately found not guilty (raising constitutional concerns of unreasonable fines and procedural due process) or is indigent (raising constitutional additional procedural due process concerns). S.981 would also not allow courts to consider co-owners’ rights until after a seized animal would be automatically forfeited and their rights terminated (raising concerns of the erroneous deprivation of property).
Please protect my rights as a responsible animal owner and veto S.981.
Thank you,
[Name]
[Phone number]
[Email address]
HOW TO CONTACT GOVERNOR MURPHY
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Phone: 609-292-6000
Email: Constituent.relations@nj.gov
Click here for an optional email form.
Tweet the Governor at https://twitter.com/GovMurphy.
Send a Facebook Message at https://www.facebook.com/governorphilmurphy.
Send a message via Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/govmurphy/.
NEXT STEPS
AKC Government Relations (GR) will continue to provide calls to action and updates regarding S.981. For more information, contact AKC GR at doglaw@akc.org.