ISBA Members, please login to join this section
Illinois top for animal protection laws, but fight continues
The Animal Legal Defense Fund ranked Illinois as the top jurisdiction in the United States for animal protection for the eighth consecutive year in 2015.1 The ranking involved an analysis of the laws of 56 states and territories for strength and comprehensiveness. Each jurisdiction received a score based on 15 categories of animal protection. The top five were Illinois, Oregon, Maine, California, and Michigan.
Illinois was not perfect, however. Illinois was the only state in the top five without an affirmative duty for police officers to enforce animal protection laws. The report also listed several potential improvements, including stronger felony provisions for neglect and abandonment, mandatory forfeiture of animals following conviction, and the institution of an animal abuser registry.
The legislature continues to work to improve Illinois animal protection laws, including movement on some of the issues identified by the ALDF. In 2014, HB4188 (98th General Assembly) would have created an animal abuse registry, but the bill died without action after being referred to the Rules Committee. In the current session, a similar bill to create an abuse registry has sat in the Rules Committee since March 2015.
More recently, HB4443 was introduced. House Bill 4443 would amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to create a duty for police officers to enforce animal cruelty laws. In particular, officers would be required to arrest or issue a notice to appear to anyone in violation of various animal cruelty provisions. This would bring Illinois in line with the other top-five states, which already have similar laws.
Efforts also continue to expand (or clarify) Illinois’ cruel treatment statute. Last year, the legislature passed Public Act 99-0311. That act added the following provision to 510 ILCS 70/3.01, the Cruel Treatment provision of the Humane Care for Animals Act:
No owner of a dog or cat that is a companion animal may expose the dog or cat in a manner that places the dog or cat in a life-threatening situation for a prolonged period of time in extreme heat or cold conditions that results in injury to or death of the animal.
The final clause, “that results in injury to or death of the animal,” was one of the final amendments to the act, and severely limits the provision’s effect. With that clause, the provision is only triggered if the owner’s conduct results in “injury or death.” This is much more limited than a provision which punishes placing animals in extreme heat or cold conditions that could lead to injury or death, but do not in a particular circumstance.
In a move toward addressing this, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz introduced HB5010, which would have also allowed punishment for exposure “that is detrimental to the animal’s health.” However, since introducing that bill, Rep. Feigenholtz has introduced three amendments, the most recent of which punishes exposure that “results in hypothermia, hyperthermia, frostbite, or similar condition” without the “detrimental” language. While this language is certainly an improvement—it now makes clear that hypothermia, hyperthermia, and frostbite are the sorts of ailments the provision seeks to cover—it is still far removed from punishing potentially harmful or merely “detrimental” conduct. Without actual injury, the bill (with its proposed Amendment 3) still would not allow for punishment.
With or without new legislation, Illinois will likely rank at or near the top of the 2016 rankings in a year. A successful push for mandatory enforcement would certainly be a win for animal rights advocates in Illinois, but the struggle over exposure laws and animal abuser registries highlight how much still remains to be done.