PDF |Add To My Favorites | print page

AB-1865 Guide, signal, and service dogs: injury or death. (2017-2018)

Bill Status
Lackey (A)
Baker (A) , Choi (A) , Jones-Sawyer (A) , Mathis (A) , Quirk (A) , Wiener (S) , Wilk (S)
Guide, signal, and service dogs: injury or death.
An act to amend Sections 13955 and 13957 of the Government Code, and to amend Sections 600.2 and 600.5 of the Penal Code, relating to guide, signal, and service dogs, and making an appropriation therefor.

Type of Measure
Inactive Bill - Vetoed
Two Thirds Vote Required
Fiscal Committee
State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Tax levy
Last 5 History Actions
Date Action
09/27/18 Vetoed by Governor.
09/06/18 Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
08/29/18 Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6832.).
08/27/18 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
08/27/18 Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5811.).
Governor's Veto Message
To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1865 without my signature.

This bill would expand the definition of a guide, signal or service dog for purposes of charging certain crimes. It would also make the owner of a dog that is injured or killed due to a criminal act eligible for victim compensation regardless of whether the dog was performing its duties at the time.

In 2016 I vetoed AB 1824 (Chang), which, like this bill, would have expanded the scope of certain crimes against guide dogs, and would allow for victims compensation in those instances. That bill also lowered the standard for convicting an individual who causes injury or death to such a dog.

While this bill does not lower the standard for conviction, it nonetheless expands the scope of several crimes without commensurate evidence that this is needed. Moreover, the existing provisions allowing compensation for crimes against service dogs have been in place for over three years and have not resulted in a single eligible claim. No claim has been denied because a dog was not in the performance of its duties at the time of a crime-the subject matter of this bill.

Accordingly I don't believe the proposed changes are warranted.


Edmund G. Brown Jr.