California Assembly Criminal Justice Bill (Ab) 1290

California has long criminalized the theft of dogs and certain valuable animals; however, until January 1, 2023, the Penal Code still reflected the language of the 1960s, as only “dog” appeared by name in the grand-theft and petty-theft statutes. California Assembly Criminal Justice Bill (ab) 1290, authored by Assembly member Alex Lee and signed by Governor Newsom, modernizes these provisions by replacing the word “dog” with “companion animal,” ensuring that birds, rabbits, reptiles, cats with owners, and many other household pets receive identical protection. The bill simultaneously clarifies that feral animals remain outside the scope of the statute and that livestock continue to be governed by Penal Code § 487a.

Understanding how these legal updates apply within the criminal process is essential for both pet owners and defendants. Navigating charges related to companion animal theft now requires familiarity with updated definitions and procedures specific to the region.

• Penal Code § 487e now punishes grand theft of a companion animal valued at more than $950.
• Penal Code § 487f covers petty theft when the animal’s value does not exceed $950.
• Penal Code § 491 declares that companion animals are personal property and instructs courts to value them the same way as any other property.
• Penal Code § 484, the general theft statute, now expressly states that “personal property includes, but is not limited to, companion animals,” codifying the legislative intent that pets deserve complete property crime protection.

California Assembly Bill 1290 reflects a growing recognition of the emotional and financial value of companion animals. By explicitly incorporating them into property-crime statutes, California Assembly Bill 1290 ensures that these pets receive the same legal protections as other valuable possessions.

• Domestic or domesticated creatures kept for companionship, emotional support, service, protection, or similar household purposes
• Species listed explicitly by the Legislature include dogs and cats; the phrase “including but not limited to” leaves room for additional species, such as birds, ferrets, guinea pigs, turtles, snakes, fish, and others.
• Exclusions
  • Feral cats as defined in Food & Agric. Code § 31752.5
  • Livestock raised primarily for agriculture (governed by § 487a)
  • True wildlife taken from the wild (may implicate Fish and Game Code offenses instead)

California Assembly Bill 1290 expands the legal definition of what constitutes a companion animal, ensuring that more species benefit from theft protections. This expanded definition plays an important role in shaping how courts apply the law in theft cases involving pets.

Borrowing from CALCRIM 1800 (Theft by Larceny) and adapting it for companion-animal theft, jurors must find:

• The defendant took possession of a companion animal that belonged to someone else
• The taking occurred without the owner’s consent At the time of the taking, the defendant intended either permanent deprivation or a period long enough to deprive the owner of a significant portion of the pet’s value or enjoyment.
• The animal was moved, even a small distance, and kept for any time.
• The animal’s fair-market value was more than $950 (grand theft, § 487e) or $950 or less (petty theft, § 487f)
• The animal was not feral livestock or wildlife.

Because a companion animal has intrinsic sentimental value, the prosecution often presents veterinary bills, pedigree certificates, adoption fees, or expert testimony about market value under Evidence Code § 810 et seq.

• CALCRIM 1800 (Theft by Larceny). Judges routinely modify this template to reference “companion animal” and Penal Code § 487e or § 487f.
• CALCRIM 1820 (Theft. Value Exceeding $950). Used to guide the jury on determining the fair-market value threshold.
• CALCRIM 3515 (Multiple Counts. Separate Offenses). If several animals are taken, the court may require separate verdict forms for each pet.

Defense counsel should carefully request pinpoint instructions on “intent to deprive permanently,” particularly when the animal was allegedly taken for temporary care (e.g., neighbor disputes over neglect).

• Wobbler offense
  • Felony: 16 months, two years, or three years in county jail under § 1170(h)
  • Misdemeanor: Up to one year in county jail
• Maximum fine: $10,000
• Formal or summary probation is available, with typical conditions including restitution for veterinary costs, return of the animal, and participation in animal care classes.

• Misdemeanor
• Up to six months in county jail
• Maximum fine: $1,000
• Probation is standard, often coupled with community-service hours at an animal shelter.

• Penal Code § 487g: makes it a separate wobbler to steal any animal for sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use, carrying the same 16/2/3 triad on the felony side.
• Penal Code § 666 (Petty Theft with a Prior): can elevate a new petty-theft charge to a wobbler if the defendant has certain prior theft convictions.
• Aggravating factors under Cal. Rules of Court 4.421: including taking multiple animals, use of force against the owner, or sophisticated planning, can justify the upper-term sentence.

• Mandatory victim-restitution orders for vet bills, grooming expenses, microchipping, boarding, and reasonable costs incurred in attempts to recover the pet.
• Potential civil liability for emotional distress (see Kimes v. Grosser, 195 Cal. App.4th 1556 (2011)), even if criminal penalties are complete.
• Immigration consequences for non-citizens because theft is considered a crime involving moral turpitude.
• Exposure to an animal-cruelty investigation under Penal Code § 597 if the pet was injured during the taking.

• Claim of Right. The defendant honestly believed the animal was theirs (e.g., custody dispute after a relationship ends)
• Lack of Intent to Permanently Deprive. Temporary removal to provide emergency veterinary care or escape abuse may negate felony intent.
• Mistake of Fact on Value. Showing the pet’s fair-market value is under $950 converts a felony filing to a misdemeanor.
• Identity and Ownership Challenges.The absence of a microchip, collar, or registration can create reasonable doubt about who owns the animal.
• Fourth Amendment Violations.An illegal search of a residence or smartphone used to find evidence.

California Assembly Bill 1290 does not eliminate the availability of these common defenses; instead, it reshapes how they may be applied in companion animal theft cases. Defendants navigating these charges must understand how the updated legal framework interacts with their rights and available legal strategies.

Several California counties, including Los Angeles, offer diversion or restorative-justice programs for first-time, non-violent theft defendants:

• Completion of animal-welfare education courses
• Written apologies and full restitution to the owner
• Commitment to perform community service at a local shelter
• Compliance can lead to dismissal under Penal Code § 1001.95 (judicial diversion) or a negotiated civil-compromise dismissal under Penal Code § 1378.

• Market price from breeders, shelters, or recent online sales of similar breeds
• Replacement cost of specialized service animals (often far exceeding $950)
• Training expenses and certification fees for emotional-support or guide animals
• Veterinary records establishing pedigree and health status
• Expert testimony from appraisers or veterinarians when the defense disputes prosecutorial estimates

Pet theft prosecutions in Southern California frequently involve:

• Disputes arising from roommate or romantic break-ups
• Unreturned pets left with sitters or groomers
• Social-media sales of high-value breeds (“Frenchies,” “Bengal cats”) that turn out to be stolen
• Rescues of animals in situations perceived to be neglected, where defendants claim moral justification but may still face charges

Early intervention, often within days of an arrest, lets defense counsel:

• Argue value under § 491 while the evidence is fresh
• Negotiate for misdemeanor filings or diversion before an information is filed
• Preserve surveillance footage and GPS data that may confirm a mistaken-identity defense

Understanding how California Assembly Bill 1290 applies is crucial when defending companion-animal theft cases in Los Angeles. Defense counsel must skillfully navigate the Los Angeles criminal process to challenge charges, protect client rights, and pursue favorable outcomes.

Assembly Bill 1290 updates California law to match modern realities: families cherish many species, not just dogs. By folding virtually every household pet into Penal Code §§ 487e-487f, the Legislature elevated the stakes for would-be thieves while providing clearer paths for restitution and recovery. For those charged, the statute remains a nuanced wobbler with multiple defenses rooted in value, ownership, and intent.

Prompt consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, especially one familiar with Los Angeles County policies, remains the single best way to protect your freedom, your record, and your relationship with the animals you love. For more information, contact Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. at (323) 464-6453 or through our online form.