Sexual Contact

The touching of a dog’s intimate parts is considered sexual contact and is considered aggravated animal abuse – a crime of the 4^th degree

Sexual Contact

Sexual contact is defined as contact “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person or to any way harm the animal or any person.”   It’s unlikely that a dog show judge’s actions would be interpreted in that manner.

Transporting animals in cruel or inhumane manner

This subjects us to whatever the animal control officer “thinks” is inhumane or cruel.

Transporting animals in cruel or inhumane manner

The bill includes the same provisions as the current law. Suggestions have been made from time to time, but they were never agreed upon.

Animal abandonment

Here is a new definition of animal abandonment and concern about an animal escaping one’s yard or wanders within 200 feet of a roadway.

Animal abandonment

There is NO new definition under the bill and the provisions have not been miss-applied as described in the email in recent time.

Chaining a dog

Cruelly restraining a dog is the dog is when a prong or choke collar is used or it is attached to a line less than 15 feet.  It was acknowledged that the crime can be defended if the owner has a reasonable basis for the restraint.

Chaining a dog

A “reasonable basis for restraining a dog” is one element of an “affirmative defense to prosecution.”  The Attorney General’s office said that providing that affirmative defense often results in the prosecution not proceeding with charges.

Pattern of cruelty

If a person commits two or more acts that violate the previous sections of the law.  Pattern of cruelty is a 2^nd degree offense.

Pattern of cruelty

Pattern of cruelty is a 2^nd degree offense if one of the acts committed is a 1^st or 2^nd degree crime.   Otherwise it’s a crime of the 3^rd degree.

Reporting animal cruelty

Anyone can report animal cruelty if they have reasonable cause and that person ill have immunity from any liability and is immune with respect to testimony given in a judicial proceeding  resulting from the report

Reporting animal cruelty

It is always possible for a person to accuse another person falsely.  The immunity in the bill is a standard immunity offered for those who report child abuse or other domestic abuse.

Requirement for shelters and pounds to provide veterinary care and exercise

Only pet owners are required to supply vet care to prevent or relieve injury, neglect or disease and must give reasonable access to a clean and adequate exercise area.   Shelters and pounds are exempt.

Requirement for shelters and pounds to provide veterinary care and exercise

There is no exemption for shelters and pounds as implied in the email.   DHSS determines what’s feasible for shelters ad pounds, while this bill says pet owners must provide what a reasonably prudent person would.

Improper euthanizing

There seems to be an inequity in the civil penalty for an animal control officer who improperly puts an animal down and a pet owner who does.

Improper euthanizing

The $500 civil penalty referred to is for euthanizing an animal prior to expiration of the holding period.   Under current law to euthanize an animal improperly is not a criminal offense and carries $25-$50 fine.   The proposed bill establishes this as a crime and has higher penalties. 

Wrong doing by an animal control officer

The civil penalty for an animal control officer is only $500, but a pet owner can be charged with fines up to $10,000.

Wrong doing by an animal control officer

Current law will be unchanged.   Any person convicted of animal cruelty cannot be an animal control officer

Definition of owner

Thee s no definition of owner under the bill and no procedure given on how someone MUST identify ownership of the animal they are surrendering.

Definition of owner

Section 2 of the bill defines both owner and caretaker.  The bill clarifies the definitions and the enforcement of those laws under Title 4.

New police powers for animal control officers

Animal control officers are being given a boost in police power.

New police powers for animal control officers

There are no new police powers given to animal control officers.  The concerns raised are current law.

Search, seizure, arrests without a warrant

Animal control officers can now arrest people and conduct searches and seizures without first obtaining a warrant from a judge.

Search, seizure, arrests without a warrant

The bill makes no changes to current law.

Prosecutions brought by the NJ SPCA

There is concern about the powers of the SPCA in that they can prosecute without having to turn the case over to an appropriate governmental prosecutorial agency.

Prosecutions brought by the NJ SPCA

Current law and the bill place no limitations on who may prosecute animal cruelty violations and the bill does not revise any rules of court procedure or prosecution

Dog shows as examples of animal fighting

There is concern that a properly authorized person could come to a dog show and take action because they perceive fighting, mistreatment or animal cruelty.

Dog shows as examples of animal fighting

Dog fighting is illegal in New Jersey.  The bill updates cross-references only.  The concerns expressed in the email are provisions under current law.

Disposition of penalties and fines

There is concern about the fact that the SPCA and municipalities should financially benefit from penalties collected as the result of animal cruelty cases

Disposition of penalties and fines

Current law was originally enacted in 1880.  In recent years it was updated to allow municipalities to receive some proceeds from convictions where they were instrumental in the investigation and prosecution.  The bill updates cross-references only.

No suits for civil damages against the NJ SPCA

No suits can be filed against the NJ SPCA, municipalities, their animal control officers or agents because of damages resulting from an arrest, prosecution or investigation.

No suits for civil damages against the NJ SPCA

This bill makes a technical correction only.  It provides immunity to a municipality for actions of the SPCA and the SPCA is provided with immunity from actions of the municipality.  It does not provide immunity from their own actions; anyone sue the SPCA.