CA AB 793
in committeePotentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 793 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 793 is in committee as of 2025-08-29 and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2025-08-29): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 793 about?
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines "potentially dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable. This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog was provoked. The bill would define the term "provoke" for purposes of these provisions. The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction's requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings. The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog. This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as specified. (3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified. This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare. (4) This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies. (5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
Who sponsors CA AB 793?
Schultz is the primary sponsor of CA AB 793, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
(1) Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines "potentially dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable. This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog was provoked. The bill would define the term "provoke" for purposes of these provisions. The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction's requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings. The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog. This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as specified. (3) Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified. This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dog's life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare. (4) This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies. (5) The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.
- Introduced
- 2025-03-19
- Latest action
- 2025-08-29 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Schultzauthor
- Alaniscoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-18
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-19
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
2025-03-17
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-03-19
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-20
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-04-08
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2025-04-09
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-04-10
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-04-24
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 0. Page 1276.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-04-24
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-05-07
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
referral-committee
2025-06-10
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-06-16
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-07-16
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 15).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-07-17
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
In committee: Held under submission.
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended.
2025-04-08 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Dixon: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Papan: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Stefani: yes
AB 793 Schultz Assembly Third Reading
2025-04-24 · pass · 68-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Hoover: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Fong: yes
- Ward: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Berman: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Davies: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Soria: yes
- Ta: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Krell: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Patel: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Lee: yes
- Flora: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Alanis: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Addis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Hart: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Papan: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Bennett: other
- Ellis: other
- Lackey: other
- Gallagher: other
- Irwin: other
- Bains: other
- Petrie-Norris: other
- Harabedian: other
- Macedo: other
- Quirk-Silva: other
- Chen: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-15 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Laird: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Stern: yes
- Allen: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Valladares: other
- Weber Pierson: other
- Caballero: other
- Niello: other
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 793. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.