Hayden Act

The Hayden Act, also known as California State Assembly [http://www.haydenact.com/Hayden%20Act%20Text.htm Bill SB 1785] was introduced by California Senator Tom Hayden on February 18, 1998, was passed and amended California Law as it applied to companion animals. [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1751-1800/sb_1785_bill_19980923_chaptered.html SB 1785 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED ] ]

Under the then existing law, dogs or cats impounded by public pounds or shelters could be killed after 72 hours of being impounded.

The Hayden Act, effective July 1, 1999, expanded this minimum impound time to 4 or 6 business days, as specified, and required that the animal be released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoptionorganization in certain circumstances, subject to specified exceptions.

The Hayden Act has recently become a powerful tool for animal rights activists to improve the lives of companion animals in California.

Lock v. Kern County, California

In 2004, the first lawsuit filed under the Hayden Act, Petitioner Patricia Lock, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Kate Neiswender, sought an injunction prohibiting Kern County, California from violating the act by euthanizing companion animals prior to the expiration of the holding period and engaging in other prohibited conduct. [ [http://www.shelterwatch.com/ Shelter Watch ] ] The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Jacie Conaway v. San Bernardino County, California

In 2007, Petitioner Jacie Conaway, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha, [http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?page=3&entry_id=4507&catid=4&volume_id=317&issue_id=318&volume_num=42&issue_num=01 San Francisco Bay Guardian ] ] filed a similar action against San Bernardino County, California. [ [http://www.haydenact.com/sbtwo.htm The Hayden Act ] ] The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Rich McLellan, M.D. v. Mendocino County, California

In 2007, Rich McLellan, M.D., the President of the California Chapter of the League of Humane Voters [ [http://humanevoters.org/Chapters/index.htm League of Humane Voters ] ] , represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha filed an action against Mendocino County, California titled McLellan v. County of Mendocino [http://www.haydenact.com/mendocinocomplaint.pdf] to have a statute enacted by the County, known as "Sec. 10.24.010 Voluntary Surrender of Animal for Euthanasia: Not Impoundment" [ [http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/animal/ord-10-24.htm Mendocino County - Animal Care and Control - Sec. 10.24.010 ] ] which contradicted the Hayden Act, and allowed for the unlawful euthanization of companion animals, declared invalid by the Mendocino County, California Court. The Mendocino County, California County Council repealed the statute before the case went to trial [ [http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/bos/pdf/current/Minutes%2006-19-07.pdf Before The Board Of Supervisors ] ] :

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – SUMMARY/ACTION MINUTES – JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 454AGENDA ITEM NO. 10A – INTRODUCTION AND WAIVE THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING MENDOCINO COUNTY CODE SECTION 10.24.010 IN ITS ENTIRETY – COUNTY COUNSELPresenter/s: Ms. Jeanine B. Nadel, County Counsel, introduced that matter, noting that this ordinance section directly contradicts State law (Food and Agricultural Code Sections), recommending it be repealed in its entirety.Board Action: Upon motion by Supervisor Delbar, seconded by Supervisor Colfax, and carried (4, with Supervisor Wattenburger absent); IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors introduces and waives the reading of the ordinance repealing Mendocino County Code Section 10.24.010 in its entirety

References