An act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses

Mandatory animal possession bans are now tiered: first offense under section 352 gets up to 5 years, first offense under section 352a (aggravated) gets up to 10 years, second or subsequent offenses get minimums of 5 and 10 years respectively. Previously all violations carried a flat minimum of 5 years.

New offense under section 352(12): possessing, owning, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal while prohibited from doing so by a court order. Previously there was no standalone criminal penalty for violating a court-ordered animal ban.

New offense under section 352(13): knowingly refusing to comply with a court order requiring periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer or the Director of Animal Welfare.

New aggravated cruelty offense under section 352a(4)(G): knowingly possessing, filming, or distributing obscene visual images of sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor or in which a minor participates. This elevates such conduct from a basic cruelty offense to aggravated cruelty (up to 5 years, up to 10 for repeat offenses).

Animal cruelty prevention programs now must be approved by the Director of Animal Welfare, and a new option for an 'animal abuse education accountability program' is added. Psychiatric/psychological evaluation language expanded to include mental health treatment with a licensed clinician, including remote options.

New definition of 'working with' an animal added to section 351(25), covering working or volunteering in any capacity requiring contact with animals at boarding facilities, shelters, pet shops, grooming facilities, veterinary clinics, and animal welfare organizations. This expands the scope of what a court ban can cover.

Section 352(11)(G) now requires that a person 'knowingly' possess, film, or distribute 'obscene' visual images of animal sexual conduct. Previously it covered any visual images without requiring knowledge or obscenity.

Livestock and poultry are now explicitly exempt from mandatory forfeiture and possession bans unless the person was specifically convicted of abusing livestock or poultry. Previously the ban applied to all animals without this carve-out.

New petition process under section 354(d) allows a person banned from having animals to petition the court for early relief. The court can grant without a hearing if no objection within 30 days or by stipulation. Standard is preponderance of the evidence that interests of justice are no longer served. If denied, no new petition for at least two years.

Multiple safe harbor provisions added: failure to consult the Secretary of Agriculture before enforcement, failure to have a surrendered animal examined within 72 hours, and failure to have a veterinarian accompany an officer during a search warrant execution are no longer grounds for dismissal or exclusion of evidence.

Periodic unannounced visits can now be conducted by the Director of Animal Welfare in addition to a humane officer, and the visit period now extends during the ban period and for up to one year after it expires (previously only after the ban ended).

The definition of 'sexual conduct' in section 351(21)(D) removed the qualifier 'without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose' from the provision covering intentional transfer or transmission of semen onto an animal, making all such acts criminal regardless of veterinary context.

The definition of 'working with' in section 351(25) was removed entirely, and corresponding references to 'reside with,' 'have custody of,' and 'work with' were stripped from the prohibited conduct language throughout sections 352 and 353, simplifying the scope of covered behavior to 'own, possess, or care for.'

Section 352(11)(G) was changed from criminalizing 'knowingly possesses, films, or distributes obscene visual images of sexual conduct with an animal' to simply 'possesses, films, or distributes visual images of sexual conduct with an animal,' removing both the mens rea requirement and the obscenity threshold, making it a strict liability offense covering any such images.

Section 352a(4)(G), which criminalized knowingly possessing, filming, or distributing obscene visual images of sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor, was removed entirely from the aggravated cruelty provision.

The animal possession ban in section 353(b) was restructured from a tiered system (up to 5 years for first 352 violations, up to 10 years for first 352a violations, not less than 5 years for second 352 violations, not less than 10 years for second 352a violations) into a single mandatory minimum of 'not less than five years' for any conviction under section 352 or 352a.

A new use immunity provision was added in section 354(f)(3) stating that no testimony or information from a civil forfeiture proceeding may be used against the defendant in any criminal case, except for perjury or false statement prosecutions.

The search warrant execution requirement was changed from a veterinarian 'must, if practicable, accompany' the humane officer to a flat requirement that a veterinarian 'must accompany' the officer, removing the practicability exception. However, the sentence stating that failure to be accompanied by a veterinarian shall not be grounds for dismissal was also removed.

A new provision in section 354(l)(2) states that when ordering payment of animal care costs, the court shall not consider the owner's ability to pay such costs.

The Restitution Unit within the Center for Crime Victim Services was explicitly authorized to collect animal care costs owed by convicted defendants or forfeited owners on behalf of custodial caregivers, using the same collection methods as criminal restitution under section 7043.

New provisions require that if a defendant is acquitted and no civil forfeiture is pending, the seized animal must be returned unless the State institutes a civil forfeiture proceeding within seven business days of the acquittal. Similarly, if the court rules in favor of the owner in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the animal must be returned unless criminal charges are filed within seven business days.

Section 352(11)(G) and 352a(4)(G): The offense of possessing, filming, or distributing visual images of animal sexual conduct now requires that the person acted 'knowingly' and that the images be 'obscene.' This narrows the criminal liability compared to the House version, which covered any visual images without those qualifiers.

Section 353(b)(1)(D): Changed from requiring a defendant to 'participate in' animal cruelty prevention programs to requiring them to 'complete' a program that is approved by the Director of Animal Welfare. This raises the bar from mere participation to completion and adds an administrative approval requirement.

Section 353(b): The animal possession ban was restructured from a single minimum five-year ban into a tiered system. First-time cruelty (section 352) offenders face a court-determined period, first-time aggravated cruelty (section 352a) offenders face up to 10 years, and repeat offenders face minimums of five years (cruelty) or 10 years (aggravated cruelty).

Section 353(d): A new petition process was added allowing a person prohibited from owning or working with animals to petition the court for relief. The court may consider factors including subsequent offenses, completion of probation conditions, completion of approved programs, and receipt of mental health counseling. Relief must be granted if the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that they are unlikely to reoffend.

Section 352(13) and 353(b)(1)(E): The Director of Animal Welfare was added alongside humane officers as authorized to conduct periodic unannounced visits to inspect animals in a defendant's care. A cross-reference error was also corrected (from section 351 to section 353).

The specific effective date of July 1, 2026 that appeared in the House-passed version is not present in the enacted text shown in this diff.

New definition of 'working with' an animal covering employment or volunteering at shelters, pet shops, grooming facilities, veterinary clinics, breeding services, and animal welfare nonprofits. This broadens the scope of who is covered by possession bans.

The sexual conduct image offense (352(11)(G)) was narrowed from 'possesses, films, or distributes visual images' to 'knowingly possesses, films, or distributes obscene visual images,' adding both a knowledge requirement and an obscenity element.

Aggravated cruelty (352a(4)) now includes two new scenarios involving minors: permitting sexual conduct on premises under the person's charge or control (E), and advertising/offering an animal for sexual conduct in the presence of a minor (F).

New criminal offense (352(12)) for possessing, owning, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal while prohibited from doing so by a court order.

New criminal offense (352(13)) for knowingly refusing to comply with a court order permitting periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer.

Mandatory programming requirements were restructured: defendants must 'complete' (not just 'participate in') approved programs, a new 'animal abuse education accountability program' option is added, and psychiatric/psychological treatment now follows a screening process with remote treatment allowed.

Animal forfeiture changed from discretionary ('the court may require') to mandatory ('the court shall require'). First-offense possession bans are now 'up to five years' for cruelty (352) and 'up to 10 years' for aggravated cruelty (352a), replacing the previous uniform 'not less than five years.' Second and subsequent offenses carry minimums of five and ten years respectively.

The requirement that a veterinarian accompany a humane officer during search warrant execution was softened from 'must' to 'shall, if practicable,' and failure to have a veterinarian present is no longer grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action. Similarly, failure to consult the Secretary of Agriculture before livestock/poultry enforcement is not grounds for dismissal.

Livestock and poultry are now explicitly exempt from forfeiture of future animal rights unless the person was convicted of abusing livestock or poultry specifically.

Entirely new petition process (353(d)) allowing a person subject to an animal possession ban to petition the court for early relief. The court considers subsequent offenses, probation compliance, program completion, and counseling. Standard is preponderance of evidence that interests of justice no longer served. If denied, petitioner must wait at least two years before re-petitioning.

Unannounced inspection visits by humane officers or the Director of Animal Welfare can now occur during the prohibition period itself and for up to one year after it expires, rather than only beginning after the five-year ban ends as in the introduced version.