California Penal Code section 597t
Encyclopedia
Section 597t of the Penal Code of California is a California
State criminal law
which requires that animals confined in enclosed areas be provided with an adequate exercise area. Even though this section of the Penal Code
does not define “adequate exercise area”, it would seem to prohibit the confinement of calves in veal
crates, as well as the confinement of hens in battery cages and the confinement of sows in gestation crates. However, this law seems to have never been enforced.
There is not a single court case in California where a defendant was found guilty of or even prosecuted for violating 597t. Because this law has never been applied in a court case, there is no precedential standard according to which animal confinement may be judged. Since 597t is a criminal law, it may not be enforced by private entities through civil action, and may only be enforced by a public prosecutor filing a criminal action, or by corporations formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals under Corporations Code section 10400.
claimed that Corcpork’s use of gestation crate
s violates Pen. Code section 597t and thus constitutes an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. In Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Corcpork, Inc., 2007 Cal. Unpub. LEXIS 634, the court refused to hear Farm Sanctuary’s claim that violations under 597t constitute unfair business practice under B&PC 17200. According to California Proposition 64 (2004)
, an individual or group may only sue for unfair business practices if that individual or group has suffered actual injury and has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. The court issued summary judgment
in favor of Corcpork, and did not address whether the confinement of sows in gestation crates violates 597t.
sued the California State Board of Equalization, arguing that sales tax exemptions for battery cages are illegal government expenditures in that they enable factory farmers to confine hens in a way that violates Pen. Code section 597t. However, in Humane Society of the United States v. State Bd. of Equalization, 152 Cal. App. 4th 349 (2007), the court ruled that sales tax exemptions for battery cages are not illegal and so do not constitute wasteful government expenditures under Code Civ. Proc. section 526(a). The court did not address whether battery cages violate Pen. Code section 597t.
(ALDF) sued Victor L. Mendes for confining calves in veal
crates, which ALDF considered to be a violation of Pen. Code 597t. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136 (2008), the court ruled that ALDF had no private right to enforce 597t through civil action. Since 597t is a criminal law
, it may only be enforced by a public prosecutor, or by a private corporation which meets particular standards. The court did not address whether the confinement of calves in veal crates violates 597t.
There are two ways in which private entities may initiate legal action against persons who violate anticruelty criminal laws. One way is through Section 10400 corporations. According to Corporations Code section 10400, a corporation may be formed for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals, and may pursue legal action against anyone for violating anti-cruelty laws. The articles of incorporation for these corporations are to be filed with the Secretary of State and endorsed by the Department of Justice or by a judge of the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is located. Only these corporations may apply for appointment of humane officers whose duty it is to enforce laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Private persons and corporations who are not incorporated under Corp. Code section 10400 may initiate legal action against persons who violate anticruelty criminal laws by making a complaint under oath to a magistrate authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases. A magistrate who receives a complaint alleging ongoing or potential animal abuse in a particular location must issue a warrant to a sheriff, police officer, or officer of a Section 10400 corporation, authorizing him or her to enter and search the building mentioned in the complaint and to arrest any person there who is violating, or intending to violate, anticruelty laws.
The ALDF is not a Section 10400 corporation. Its articles of incorporation were not endorsed by the Department of Justice or by a judge of any superior court for the purpose of giving it quasi-governmental powers described in Section 10400. Since it is not a Section 10400 corporation, it does not have a humane officer who is authorized to pursue legal action against violators of anticruelty criminal laws. The ALDF did not make a complaint before a magistrate authorized to issue warrants. Because this case is not initiated by a Section 10400 corporation, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, it does not fall under any of the methods of enforcement provided by law.
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
State criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
which requires that animals confined in enclosed areas be provided with an adequate exercise area. Even though this section of the Penal Code
California Penal Code
The Penal Code of California forms the basis for the application of criminal law in the American state of California. It was originally enacted in 1872 as one of the original four California Codes, and has been substantially amended and revised since then....
does not define “adequate exercise area”, it would seem to prohibit the confinement of calves in veal
Veal
Veal is the meat of young cattle , as opposed to meat from older cattle. Though veal can be produced from a calf of either sex and any breed, most veal comes from male calves of dairy cattle breeds...
crates, as well as the confinement of hens in battery cages and the confinement of sows in gestation crates. However, this law seems to have never been enforced.
There is not a single court case in California where a defendant was found guilty of or even prosecuted for violating 597t. Because this law has never been applied in a court case, there is no precedential standard according to which animal confinement may be judged. Since 597t is a criminal law, it may not be enforced by private entities through civil action, and may only be enforced by a public prosecutor filing a criminal action, or by corporations formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals under Corporations Code section 10400.
Text
The statute reads as:Court Cases
Three California cases cite 597t. However, the courts in all these cases refrain from determining whether the concerned animal farming practice violates this statute.Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Corcpork, Inc.
Farm SanctuaryFarm Sanctuary
Farm Sanctuary is an American animal protection organization, founded in 1986 as an advocate for farm animals. It promotes laws and policies that support animal welfare, animal protection and vegetarianism/veganism through rescue, education and advocacy...
claimed that Corcpork’s use of gestation crate
Gestation crate
A gestation crate, also known as a sow stall, is a 7 ft by 2 ft metal enclosure used in intensive pig farming, in which a female breeding pig may be confined during pregnancy, and in effect for most of her adult life....
s violates Pen. Code section 597t and thus constitutes an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. In Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Corcpork, Inc., 2007 Cal. Unpub. LEXIS 634, the court refused to hear Farm Sanctuary’s claim that violations under 597t constitute unfair business practice under B&PC 17200. According to California Proposition 64 (2004)
California Proposition 64 (2004)
Proposition 64 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It passed with 6,571,694 votes in favor and 4,578,725 against...
, an individual or group may only sue for unfair business practices if that individual or group has suffered actual injury and has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. The court issued summary judgment
Summary judgment
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case....
in favor of Corcpork, and did not address whether the confinement of sows in gestation crates violates 597t.
Humane Society of the United States v. State Bd. of Equalization
Under the Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a), any individual taxpayer or group of taxpayers may seek a judgment restraining wasteful government expenditures. Wasteful government expenditures are understood as government funding for illegal activities. The Humane Society of the United StatesHumane Society of the United States
The Humane Society of the United States , based in Washington, D.C., is the largest animal advocacy organization in the world. In 2009, HSUS reported assets of over US$160 million....
sued the California State Board of Equalization, arguing that sales tax exemptions for battery cages are illegal government expenditures in that they enable factory farmers to confine hens in a way that violates Pen. Code section 597t. However, in Humane Society of the United States v. State Bd. of Equalization, 152 Cal. App. 4th 349 (2007), the court ruled that sales tax exemptions for battery cages are not illegal and so do not constitute wasteful government expenditures under Code Civ. Proc. section 526(a). The court did not address whether battery cages violate Pen. Code section 597t.
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes
Animal Legal Defense FundAnimal Legal Defense Fund
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is an American non-profit law organization that aims to protect the rights and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. It was founded in 1979 by attorneys active in shaping the emerging field of animal law. The ALDF has campaigned for stronger...
(ALDF) sued Victor L. Mendes for confining calves in veal
Veal
Veal is the meat of young cattle , as opposed to meat from older cattle. Though veal can be produced from a calf of either sex and any breed, most veal comes from male calves of dairy cattle breeds...
crates, which ALDF considered to be a violation of Pen. Code 597t. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136 (2008), the court ruled that ALDF had no private right to enforce 597t through civil action. Since 597t is a criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
, it may only be enforced by a public prosecutor, or by a private corporation which meets particular standards. The court did not address whether the confinement of calves in veal crates violates 597t.
There are two ways in which private entities may initiate legal action against persons who violate anticruelty criminal laws. One way is through Section 10400 corporations. According to Corporations Code section 10400, a corporation may be formed for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals, and may pursue legal action against anyone for violating anti-cruelty laws. The articles of incorporation for these corporations are to be filed with the Secretary of State and endorsed by the Department of Justice or by a judge of the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is located. Only these corporations may apply for appointment of humane officers whose duty it is to enforce laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Private persons and corporations who are not incorporated under Corp. Code section 10400 may initiate legal action against persons who violate anticruelty criminal laws by making a complaint under oath to a magistrate authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases. A magistrate who receives a complaint alleging ongoing or potential animal abuse in a particular location must issue a warrant to a sheriff, police officer, or officer of a Section 10400 corporation, authorizing him or her to enter and search the building mentioned in the complaint and to arrest any person there who is violating, or intending to violate, anticruelty laws.
The ALDF is not a Section 10400 corporation. Its articles of incorporation were not endorsed by the Department of Justice or by a judge of any superior court for the purpose of giving it quasi-governmental powers described in Section 10400. Since it is not a Section 10400 corporation, it does not have a humane officer who is authorized to pursue legal action against violators of anticruelty criminal laws. The ALDF did not make a complaint before a magistrate authorized to issue warrants. Because this case is not initiated by a Section 10400 corporation, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, it does not fall under any of the methods of enforcement provided by law.