BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2806

By: Lujan

Public Health

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, an estimated 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year, with an estimated 800,000 requiring medical attention. Children account for approximately half of all dog bite victims, with the elderly being the second most common group of victims, according to the Department of State Health Services. As reported by San Antonio Report, a recent mauling in San Antonio brought to light a statute restriction animal authorities encounter: the victim or witness must file a notarized witness statement with the city's Animal Care Services before it can launch an investigation. C.S.H.B. 2806 seeks to address this issue by authorizing an applicable animal control authority to investigate an incident when a report on a dangerous dog is made by observing and documenting the behavior of the dog or by examining the sworn statements of any witnesses.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill expressly does one or more of the following: creates a criminal offense, increases the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or changes the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2806 amends the Health and Safety Code to remove the requirement for an animal control authority, after receiving the sworn statements of any witnesses, to notify the owner in writing of the determination. The bill authorizes an animal control authority to determine a dog is a dangerous dog if the animal control authority investigates an incident of a dangerous dog, as described by applicable provisions, by observing and documenting the behavior of the dog or by examining the sworn statements of any witnesses and requires the authority, for a dog the authority determines is a dangerous dog, to notify the owner in writing of the determination. These provisions apply only to a determination based on an incident that occurred on or after the bill's effective date. An incident that occurred before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the incident occurred, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

C.S.H.B. 2806 establishes that the identifying information of a witness who gives a sworn statement for the incident is confidential and not subject to disclosure under state public information law and may be disclosed only for purposes of enforcing provisions relating to the regulation of animals to the governing body of the municipality or county in which the incident occurred, as applicable, and any other governmental or law enforcement agency. The bill defines "identifying information" by refence to statutory provisions relating to fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. Additionally, the exemption and limitation apply to information contained in a sworn statement released on or after the bill's effective date, regardless of whether the sworn statement was made before, on, or after that date.

C.S.H.B. 2806 authorizes the animal control authority in a municipality containing more than 70 percent of the population of a county with a population of 1.5 million or more to investigate the following reported incidents:

· a dog made an unprovoked attack on a person that caused bodily injury that occurred in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or

· a dog committed unprovoked acts in a place other than such an enclosure and those acts caused a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person.

The bill requires the animal control authority, if after reviewing the sworn statements of any witness or reviewing any other applicable reports or information the animal control authority determines that the dog is a dangerous dog, to notify the owner in writing of the determination. These requirements apply only to a determination based on an incident that occurred on or after the bill's effective date. An incident that occurred before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the incident occurred, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

C.S.H.B. 2806 enhances from a Class C misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor the penalty for a subsequent conviction of an attack by a dangerous dog offense. This enhancement applies only to an offense committed on or after the bill's effective date. An offense committed before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For these purposes, an offense was committed before the bill's effective date if any element of the offense occurred before that date.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 2806 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute omits the provisions from the introduced that did the following:

· defined "bodily injury";

· expanded the conduct that constitutes an attack by a dog offense to include bodily injury;

· established that this expanded conduct is a Class B misdemeanor offense if the attack causes bodily injury, a third degree felony if the attack causes serious bodily injury, and a second degree felony if the attack causes death and established a corresponding procedural provision; and

· created the offense of possession of an animal by a person convicted of a dangerous dog attack offense and established a corresponding procedural provision.

The substitute includes a provision absent from the introduced establishing that the bill may be cited by its short title as the "Roman Najera Act."

Whereas the introduced requires an animal control authority, if the animal control authority investigates an incident of a dangerous dog, as described by applicable provisions, to determine whether the dog is a dangerous dog by observing and documenting the behavior of the dog or by examining the sworn statements of any witnesses, the substitute authorizes an animal control authority to determine a dog is a dangerous dog if the animal control authority investigates an incident of a dangerous dog, as described by applicable provisions, by observing and documenting the behavior of the dog or by examining the sworn statements of any witnesses and requires an authority that determines is a dangerous dog, to notify the owner in writing of the determination.

Whereas the introduced requires the animal control authority in a municipality that contains more than 70 percent of the population of a county with a population of 1.5 million or more to investigate the reported incidents of certain unprovoked acts by a dog, the substitute authorizes the animal control authority in a municipality that contains more than 70 percent of the population of a county with a population of 1.5 million or more to investigate such reported incidents.