Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Grubesic

DATE TYPED 3/1/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Dangerous Dog Act

SB 432/aSJC

ANALYST Wilson

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

See Narrative

Duplicates HB 400

Conflicts with SB 188

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

Corrections Department (CD)

Department of Health (DOH)

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Regulation & Licensing Department (RLD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SJC Amendment

The Senate Judiciary Committee amendment clarifies the definition of a “proper enclosure” to

exclude the need for a chain or restraint on an animal that is already confined. The amendment

also requires that a dangerous dog be under complete control at all times including while being

transported in a vehicle. The amendment adds a new section requiring the State to prove an

owner knew an animal was dangerous and the animal had previously been found by a court to be

dangerous, to prosecute under State law.

Synopsis of Original Bill

Senate Bill 432 enacts the dangerous dog act, defines a dangerous dog, authorizes the seizure and

destruction of dangerous dogs by local animal control authorities, imposes registration and han-

dling requirements on the owners of dangerous dogs, and provides for penalties for violations of

Senate Bill 432/aSJC -- Page 2

the dangerous dog act.

The bill defines a “dangerous dog” as one that has “caused serious injury to a person or domestic

animal.”

The owner of a dog that causes injury or death to a domestic animal is guilty of a fourth degree

felony. If a dangerous dog causes serious injury or death to a human being the owner is guilty of

a third degree felony.

Significant Issues

Recent attacks by dogs on children and others in New Mexico have been highlighted in the me-

dia. Some members of the public have advocated for a ban on certain breeds of dogs that they

consider dangerous. This bill is more generic, defining a dangerous dog based on its behavior

and putting the responsibility for keeping a dangerous dog on the owner.

This bill also places the responsibility on local animal control authorities for enforcing the provi-

sions of the bill; including issuing a certificate of registration, ensuring compliance with all the

provisions required to obtain a certificate of registration, seizure and confinement of suspect

dangerous animals until a court hearing decides whether a dog is classified as dangerous, and

collecting fees connected with the dangerous dog act.

Care should be taken to assure this bill does not conflict or create confusion with existing statutes

and regulations concerning vicious dogs and rabies quarantine following a bite exposure. Many

local animal control authorities are required by ordinance to immediately seize a dog and place it

in quarantine for 10 days in order to determine that it did not have rabies at the time it bit a per-

son. This bill will require them to obtain a warrant from a court before they could quarantine the

animal, this could result in a missed opportunity to quarantine the animal and lead to a person

unnecessarily having to take numerous doses of rabies vaccine.

The AGO has raised the following:

•

There are issues related to the enforcement of the provisions of the bill, and with due

process considerations involving the destruction of a person’s property. If, for example,

an animal control officer impounds a dog, but the owner will not admit the dog is dan-

gerous and the owner fails to file a petition in district court within 14 days for a determi-

nation, the animal may be summarily destroyed. Destruction of a person’s property, in

this case a dog, could withstand scrutiny only if based on whether the dog was dangerous

or not.

•

The bill establishes certain criteria that an owner must comply with if he possesses a dan-

gerous dog. These include vaccinations, sterilization, implanted microchip, and enroll-

ment in a socialization and behavior program. These requirements could be difficult to

enforce and it might be difficult to verify compliance.

•

The bill defines a “potentially dangerous dog” as a dog that a person could reasonably as-

sume poses a threat based on certain behaviors, such as acting aggressive in a fenced yard

and appearing to be able to jump over the fence. This arguably vague definition is open

to interpretation and could be difficult to enforce.

Senate Bill 432/aSJC -- Page 3

•

The bill refers to the impoundment of a dog in several places, but the language is silent

with regard to who will be responsible for the basic needs of an impounded dog, includ-

ing feeding and walking the animal, attending to medication administration if necessary,

and special dietary considerations. If the bill authorizes impounding, the responsibility in

carrying that out should be specified.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

According to this bill, when an animal control authority obtains a warrant to seize a dog that is

considered to be dangerous or potentially dangerous, they are responsible for impounding the

dog pending the disposition of the case. The owner of the dog has 14 days from the seizure to

bring a petition to the court and if the court finds the dog to be dangerous, 30 days to comply

with the registration and handling requirements. If the court hearing is delayed, this is also added

time that the animal will be impounded. The local animal control authority could wind up keep-

ing the dog impounded for 44 days or longer. The responsibility for the cost of this impound-

ment, including feeding, housing, and potential medical care would be the responsibility of the

local government. Many local animal shelters are already extremely crowded and the added bur-

den of keeping a dangerous dog for this long could be problematic.

The burden of law enforcement will also fall heavily on local municipalities and counties. An

animal rights expert has provided information indicating that the city of Albuquerque is request-

ing more than $500 thousand for new officers, equipment and training to enforce their new dan-

gerous dog ordinance. This does not include more kennel space.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The enforcement requirements in this bill will affect local governments who may not have suffi-

cient staffing to carry out all of the responsibilities.

The AOC states that the judiciary will need additional resources in order to comply with this bill.

The CD states that they can absorb the additional burden as they anticipate a very minimal num-

ber of convictions and incarcerations.

CONFLICTS/ DUPLICATION

SB 432 duplicates HB 400.

SB 432 has a definition of a dangerous dog and a procedure for the seizure of dangerous dogs in

this bill are in conflict with definition and procedure for seizing dogs in SB 188, Pit Bull Breed-

ing Act.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

DOH notes that on page 2 of this bill, Section 2. B., line 4 and Section 2. D. (1) lines 11-12 and

(2) lines 13-14 the words “domestic animal” is used. This may benefit from clarification and

definition in Section 2, as to whether it includes livestock such as horses, poultry and cattle or

only refers to other pets such as dogs and cats.

Senate Bill 432/aSJC -- Page 4

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

DPS feels it is important to consider including the New Mexico State Police as having the au-

thority to enforce this statue in areas not served by an animal control authority. Some areas have

only State Police Officers as principle law enforcement agents. In matters of emergency this au-

thority would facilitate situations with dangerous dogs.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

The DPS asks if this statute governs animals classified as hybrid wolfs. Many of these animals

exist in our state. Does the bill address these animals.

The AOC raised the following:

Several of the behaviors that may cause a dog to be classified as a “potentially dangerous

dog” are highly subjective and could lead to uneven application of the Act. Must an ani-

mal control authority witness these behaviors or merely be informed of them.

What will determine if an animal control authority orders immediate impoundment or

humane destruction if an owner fails to abide by the conditions for registration, confine-

ment or handling.

DW/yr