Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety June 19, 2014

Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety June 19, 2014

Report on Bill 20-191 Page 7 of 7

TO: All Councilmembers

FROM: Councilmember Tommy Wells, Chairperson

Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety

DATE: June 19, 2014

SUBJECT: Report on Bill 20-191, the “Prohibition of the Harm of Police Animals Amendment Act of 2014”[1]

The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, to which Bill 20-191, the “Prohibition of the Harm of Police Animals Amendment Act of 2014” was referred, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, and recommends approval by the Council.

CONTENTS

I. Background And Need 1

II. Legislative Chronology 4

III. Position Of The Executive 4

IV. Comments Of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 4

V. Summary Of Testimony and Statements 5

VI. Impact On Existing Law 6

VII. Fiscal Impact 6

VIII. Section-By-Section Analysis 6

IX. Committee Action 7

X. Attachments 7

I.  Background And Need

Bill 20-191, the Prohibition of the Harm to Police Animals Amendment Act of 2014, creates enhanced penalties against anyone who intentionally hurts a police animal. The bill recognizes the special role these animals play in protecting our communities, as well as the significant financial investment required to acquire and train them. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) maintains a force of more than 40 canines, used for detecting firearms, explosives, drugs, and human remains; for tracking missing persons; and for apprehending persons. The Department also keeps and uses horses.

Though some of the animals are donated, the price of other animals can be substantial. Patrol dogs are each acquired at an initial cost of $5,000 to $6,000; a recently added bloodhound cost $8,000. The Department must also pay for ongoing training, veterinary care, and any other costs of maintaining the animals. At the public hearing on Bill 20-191, MPD canine handler Sergeant Johnnie Walters estimated that the Department spends between $40,000 and $50,000 on each canine during the span of its working life.

Although the instances of injury to police animals are not frequent, they do occur. In the District, police canines have been shot, stabbed, thrown out of a window, attacked with a chair, kicked, and punched.[2] In 2012, a police horse was punched repeatedly by a protestor.[3] At least 23 states and the Federal government currently have enhanced penalties for harming a police animal.[4] Seventeen states make the serious injuring or killing of a police animal a felony offense[5] and 11 states make harassing or interfering with a police animal a misdemeanor offense.[6] Sentences range from 1 year up to 20 years; four states and the Federal government have a 10 year or higher punishable felony offense.[7] Bill 20-191 will bring the District in line with the police animal protection laws of much of the rest of the country, and it will send a message that police animals are members of our law enforcement community who deserve special protection, just as police officers do,[8] for the important and dangerous work they carry out.

The Committee reworked the bill in several important ways based on suggestions received at the public hearing on November 21, 2013. The first and perhaps most significant change was the addition of a misdemeanor offense. The introduced version of the bill would create a five-year punishable felony for willful and malicious harm to a police animal. If the harm results in permanent disability, serious bodily injury, or the death of a police animal, the offense is elevated to a 10 year punishable felony. Witnesses raised concerns at the hearing about the meaning of the word “harm,” since the introduced bill does not define the term. For example, the question was posed as to whether tapping on the window of police vehicle with a police dog inside would be considered “harm.” Anticipating that “harm” could be applied to instances of conduct that do not result in actual injury to a police animal and therefore, in the view of the Committee, do not rise to the level of a felony, the Committee replaced the five-year felony for “harm” with a 180-day misdemeanor offense for anyone who “harasses, interferes with, injures, or obstructs a police animal.” This provision is intended to focus on the action of the offender, rather than the result of the action, such as a physical injury to the animal. The committee print keeps the 10-year felony intact for anyone who causes serious bodily injury or the death of a police animal. This change to a misdemeanor and felony scheme more closely mirrors the assault on a police officer statute.[9] The Committee believes this change is appropriate because the need for special protection for each group is derived from the law enforcement duties and risks that accompany the work done by police officers and police animals.

Another important change to the introduced bill is the addition of a knowledge requirement. For a person to be guilty of either the misdemeanor or felony offense in the bill, that person must have reason to believe the animal is a police animal. This requirement is intended to limit these offenses to individuals who target police animals because of the animals’ police association.

The committee print also adds in the phrase “without justifiable and excusable cause” to the offenses in the bill. The purpose of this insertion is to create an exception for circumstances that fall outside the targeted conduct of this bill. For example, where a police animal is euthanized by a veterinarian at the request of the animal’s law enforcement agency, the action of the veterinarian who performs the euthanasia is not intended to fall under the scope of this bill.

The last substantive change to the introduced bill is the addition of subsection (b)(3) that applies the misdemeanor and felony offenses to “an owner or keeper of a dog or other animal who intentionally and without justifiable and excusable cause fails to restrain the dog or animal from attacking a police animal when the owner or keeper has reason to believe the animal is a police animal.” This provision is included in comparable statutes in several other states, including Alabama and Ohio.[10]

The Committee heard criticism at the public hearing from the Public Defender Service (PDS), who testified about three statutes in the D.C. Code that can presently be charged against a person who inflicts injury on a police animal—assault on a police officer,[11] malicious harm to property,[12] and animal cruelty.[13] PDS’s concern was that multiple statutes could be stacked up against a defendant for the same behavior and lead to disparate treatment of defendants. The Committee recognizes PDS’s concern as valid but disagrees that Bill 20-191 is not still necessary because of the existence of these three statutes. None of these statutes directly addresses the specific harm Bill 20-191 is intended to prohibit. This bill is a penalty enhancement that would clearly express the intent of the Council to provide special protection to police animals. Moreover, there are many instances in the Code where the same conduct is criminalized in multiple statutes. The Committee trusts in the discretion of District prosecutors to pick the most appropriate offenses to charge in each individual scenario.

II.  Legislative Chronology

March 19, 2013 Bill 20-191, the “Prohibition of Harm of Police Animals Amendment Act of 2013,” is introduced by Councilmembers Wells, Evans, Cheh, Alexander, Orange, Grosso, McDuffie, Bonds, Bowser, Mendelson, and Graham.

March 19, 2013 Bill 20-191 is referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.

March 29, 2013 Notice of Intent to act on Bill 20-191 is published in the District of Columbia Register.

October 4, 2013 Notice of a Public Hearing is published in the District of Columbia Register.

November 21, 2013 The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety holds a public hearing on Bill 20-191.

June 19, 2014 The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety marks-up Bill 20-191.

III. Position Of The Executive

The Committee received testimony from the Executive through Ms. Kelly O’Meara, Executive Director of Strategic Change at the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), and Mr. David Rosenthal, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the Public Safety Division at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

Ms. O’Meara, on behalf of MPD Police Chief Cathy Lanier, testified strongly in favor of Bill 20-191 and made several recommendations. These include: (1) Add common patrol functions into the definition of “police animal” in subsection (d); (2) Remove “maliciously” from the intent requirement in subsection (a); and (3) Establish a misdemeanor offense predicated on the actions of the offender and not on the resulting harm.

Mr. Rosenthal testified in favor of modeling the bill on the current law against assaulting a police officer.[14]

IV.  Comments Of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

The Committee received no testimony or comments from any Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners.

V.  Summary Of Testimony and Statements

The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety held a public hearing on Bill 20-191 on Thursday, November 21, 2013. The testimony summarized below is from that hearing. The hearing may be viewed online at http://dccouncil.us/videos/archive/.

Sergeant Johnnie Walters, Metropolitan Police Department: Sgt. Walters is the handler for MPD tracking bloodhound, Sam, whom he brought to the hearing. He discussed the work that Sam does for the Department and the special training that all police dogs go through. Sgt. Walters stated that handlers are in possession of their police canine 24 hours a day. Patrol dogs go through a 16-week course, and the handler goes through the course with them. Sgt. Walters stated that Sam trained from the age of eight weeks until he was two years old. Sam will locate missing persons, for example, missing elderly with dementia, or missing children. Because patrol dogs are trained to make apprehensions and Sam is not, Sam is preferable for finding missing persons. Dogs must be retrained every four to six weeks. Sgt. Walters estimated that the average total cost of patrol dog is between $40,000 and $50,000.

Raymond Noll, Director of Animal Control Field Services, Washington Humane Society: Mr. Noll testified in favor of the bill. As a former police canine officer, he stated he has seen the value firsthand of police animals and the dangerous situations they must face in the discharge of their police duties. Accordingly, the Washington Humane Society fully supports the bill.

Scott Giacoppo, Vice President of External Affairs, Washington Humane Society: Mr. Giacoppo testified that the Washington Humane Society fully supports the bill. He testified that a self-defense provision is not necessary for the bill because an innocent person defending himself from a police dog would not be harming the dog with malicious intent and would therefore not fall within the scope of the bill. He further advised that police animals fall into a separate category than the everyday domestic pets that the animal cruelty statute is intended to protect because of their police duties.

Marcello N. Muzzatti, President, Fraternal Order of Police, DC Lodge #1: Mr. Muzzatti testified in favor of the bill. He described his 20 years of work as a MPD canine handler and the value of a canine partner for a police officer and the special bond formed between a handler and canine. Mr. Muzzatti recalled two instances during his career where a canine was shot in one incident and stabbed in another. To his knowledge, no charges were filed against the offenders.

Marie Drissel, Public Witness: Ms. Drissel testified in favor of the bill. A former President of the Washington Humane Society, Ms. Drissel spoke about how important it is to support the various law enforcement animals who work in the District. She was surprised to learn that D.C. did not already have such a law, particularly when there is a federal law already.

Laura Hankins, Special Counsel to the Director, Public Defender Service for DC: Ms. Hankins testified in opposition to the bill. She testified that the conduct Bill 20-191 attempts to criminalize is already adequately covered by current laws, including D.C. Code §§ 22-405, 22-1001, and 22-303.

Stacey Evans, Past Chair of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Animal Law Section: Ms. Evans testified in favor of the bill. She made several recommendations including adding a prohibition against harassment of a police animal, removal of the humane destruction clause of subsection (7) of the bill, and stating the actual amount of the maximum fines in the bill.

Kristopher Baumann, Chairman, DC Police Union: Mr. Baumann testified in favor of the bill. He stated that the bill is necessary to send a message to the public that police animals are protected and anyone who hurts one will face serious consequences. He further stated that the bill should include a mandatory minimum sentence as a crime of violence. He called the work of police animals “heroic.” Mr. Baumann additionally reiterated the high level of training given to police dogs that minimizes risk of a police dog going rogue.

Richard Gilbert, Co-Chair, Legislative Committee, District of Columbia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: Mr. Gilbert recommended changing the bill to amend the animal cruelty statute to double the established penalties if the offender knew or should have known that the animal was a police animal. He further testified that the meaning of “harm” in the bill is ambiguous, that there is a self-defense issue, and brought up the question of whether we want to make felons out of anyone who does something less than seriously injure or kill a police animal.