Fiscal Note - SB 0009 - Defines Animal Mistreatment & Allows a Person Charged With Mistreatment of An Animal to be Sentenced w/a Class D
L.R. NO. 0027-02
BILL NO. SB 9 with SCA 1
SUBJECT: Agriculture and Animals: Crimes and Punishment
TYPE: Original
DATE: February 25, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that they cannot
estimate the number of new commitments which may result from the creation of
the offense(s) outlined in this proposal. An increase in commitments depends
on the utilization by prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the
court. If additional persons are sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to
the provisions of this legislation, the DOC would incur a corresponding
increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average of $29.16
per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of
Probation and Parole (average of $2.50 per offender, per day). Supervision
by the DOC through probation or incarceration would result in some additional
costs but it is assumed that the impact would be minimal.
Oversight assumes that the passage of this proposal would not substantially
increase costs to the DOC based on the assumption that there would only be an
initial increase in the number of cases and that compliance would likely
follow. Also, in response to a similar proposal in the previous legislative
session, DOC officials assumed that the overall fiscal impact would be
minimal. Therefore, Oversight assumes that any costs incurred as a result of
this proposal could be absorbed with existing resources.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the
proposed legislation would create new crimes relating to animal fighting and
attendance at such events. CTS would anticipate some initial increase in the
number of cases filed; however, after a period of time, they would anticipate
substantial compliance with the legislation. CTS would not expect a
significant overall increase in the workload of the courts.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume there
would be 100 additional felonies of animal fighting and 170 additional
misdemeanor charges for watching animal fighting. SPD stated they would need
a .75 FTE Assistant Public Defender ($32,256 per year) and a .25 FTE
Secretary ($17,724 per year), equipment and operating expenses to carry out
the provisions of this proposal with an estimated annual cost of $44,305.
Oversight assumes that the passage of this proposal would not substantially
increase costs to the SPD based on the assumption that there would only be an
initial increase in the number of cases and that compliance would likely
follow. Therefore, Oversight assumes that any costs incurred as a result of
this proposal could be absorbed with existing resources. However, passage of
more than one similar bill could require the SPD to request increased
appropriations to cover the cumulative cost of representing the indigent
accused.
Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume this proposal could
have a fiscal impact on local prosecutors; however, they anticipate that the
costs would be minimal and could be absorbed with existing resources.
Officials from the Department of Agriculture - Division of Animal Health and
the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol assume that the
proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.
Officials of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) have not yet responded
to the request for fiscal note; however, in response to similar legislation
from the previous legislative session, AGO officials assumed that there would
be no fiscal impact to their agency.
Oversight also assumes that administrative costs might increase for local
governmental entities, but that the imposition of stiffer fines would likely
cover any increased costs.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
0 0 0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
Costs to Local Government - Likely to be minimal since any additional
administrative costs due to passage of this legislation would be offset by
the imposition of stiffer fines for convictions.
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of
this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation would revise the law on animal fighting. The
proposal would:
1) make a person who owns, possesses, keeps, or trains an animal for a
fighting or wrestling exhibition with another animal, bird, or person guilty
of a class D felony; 2) make persons who, for amusement or gain, cause any
animal or bird to fight or wrestle with another animal or bird in an
exhibition of fighting or wrestling, guilty of a class D felony; 3) make
persons who allow animal fighting or wrestling on their premises, or aid or
abet such acts guilty of a class D felony; 4) make spectators at an animal
fighting or wrestling exhibition guilty of an infraction for a first offense
guilty of a class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense; and 5) allow the
Highway Patrol to take possession of all fowl, birds, or animals involved in
an exhibition of animal wrestling or fighting.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
State Courts Administrator
State Public Defender
Office of Prosecution Services
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Department of Public Safety
Department of Corrections
NOT RESPONDING - Office of the Attorney General
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.