| Type of Measure |
|---|
| Inactive Bill - Vetoed |
| Two Thirds Vote Required |
| Appropriation |
| Fiscal Committee |
| State-Mandated Local Program |
| Non-Urgency |
| 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. Sincerely, Edmund G. Brown Jr. |