Relating to the creation of the criminal offense of trespass in a facility housing an animal and to restitution for property damage resulting from that trespass.
Summary
SB 2969 creates a new criminal offense for trespassing in a facility that houses animals, such as a zoo or similar indoor or outdoor venue operated for public visitation, conservation, education, or science. The bill targets conduct where a person knowingly enters a cage, enclosure, or other area where an animal is exhibited or housed without legal authority, license, or permission. It also defines “harass” for purposes of the offense to include conduct showing disregard for an animal’s well-being or disrupting normal behavior, including feeding, watering, resting, or breeding.
The offense is generally a state jail felony, but it becomes a third-degree felony if the person harassed the animal and the animal was injured or killed. The bill also provides a defense if the person entered the area to aid another person or an animal, while expressly rejecting defenses based on inadequate security or claims that injuring the animal was necessary to protect oneself from injury or death. In addition, the bill requires restitution to the facility for damage, loss, or destruction caused by the offense, including costs associated with injury or death of the animal.
Impact
The bill would add Section 30.08 to Chapter 30 of the Texas Penal Code and amend Article 42.037 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to require restitution in convictions under the new offense. Its practical effect is to create a specific animal-facility trespass crime distinct from general criminal trespass, with enhanced penalties when animals are harassed or harmed. It would affect individuals who unlawfully enter animal enclosures, as well as facilities such as zoos and other animal exhibition, conservation, education, or research sites by giving prosecutors and courts a new enforcement tool and a mandatory restitution remedy.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill moved through the process without recorded opposition in the provided vote snippets, though the vote entries shown are procedural and do not reflect a substantive floor tally. The bill’s framing indicates a protective, public-safety-oriented approach focused on animal welfare and facility security. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded discussion here showing organized support or criticism beyond the text of the measure itself.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to center on the breadth of the new offense and the severity of the penalties. The bill expressly rejects defenses based on weak security or claims of self-protection, which could concern civil-liberties advocates or defendants arguing accidental or emergency entry. Another possible issue is the felony escalation when an animal is injured or dies, which may be viewed as appropriate deterrence by supporters but excessive by critics who worry about overcriminalization or how “harass” could be applied. Supporters are likely animal-welfare advocates, zoo and facility operators, and prosecutors; potential critics may include criminal-defense interests and those concerned about protest-related or emergency-entry scenarios.
Identical
Relating to the creation of the criminal offense of trespass in a facility housing an animal and to restitution for property damage resulting from that trespass.
Relating to the creation of the criminal offense of trespass in a facility housing an animal and to restitution for property damage resulting from that trespass.