HB3791 amends Section 4.04 of the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act and may be cited as Dax’s Law. The bill addresses crimes involving animals used for law enforcement purposes, including police animals, search and rescue dogs, accelerant detection dogs, and animals in training. It makes it unlawful to willfully or maliciously torture, mutilate, injure, disable, poison, or kill these animals, and it updates the statutory language by removing references to service animals from the title and certain provisions.
A key substantive change is that a person convicted under this section would be responsible for the injured animal’s veterinary bills, in addition to any other penalties already available under law. The bill appears aimed at strengthening protections for working animals and ensuring that the costs of treatment are shifted to the offender rather than law enforcement agencies or animal handlers.
Impact
HB3791 would amend 510 ILCS 70/4.04 in the Humane Care for Animals Act, narrowing and clarifying the statute’s focus on animals used for law enforcement purposes while retaining protections for police animals, search and rescue dogs, and accelerant detection canines. It would also impose an explicit restitution-like obligation for veterinary expenses on convicted offenders, potentially increasing financial penalties and recovery options for agencies or owners responsible for the animal’s care.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be presented in a strongly supportive, protective posture toward working animals. The naming of the bill as Dax’s Law suggests a memorial or advocacy-driven effort, and the caption indicates a clear public-safety and animal-protection rationale. No recorded opposition or divided vote history is available in the provided materials.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s decision to remove references to service animals from the specific section title and related language while still preserving protections for other working animals. That drafting choice could raise questions about whether service animals are being treated differently or whether the statute is being reorganized for clarity. Another possible issue is the new requirement that offenders pay veterinary bills, which could be viewed as an appropriate restitution measure by supporters but as an added penalty by critics concerned about sentencing scope or enforceability.