A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS SO AS TO ENACT "RILEY'S ACT" BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-40, RELATING TO THE ILL-TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-50, RELATING TO THE ILL-TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-60, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL CUTTING OF MUSCLES OF TAILS OF HORSES, ASSES, MULES, MARES, OR GELDINGS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-110, RELATING TO VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 47-1-90 AND 47-1-100, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-125, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL COLORING, DYING, OR SALE OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-200, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER OF ANIMALS AND IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF DOGS OR CATS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 47-1-210, RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY OFFERING LIVE ANIMALS AS PRIZES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; BY ADDING SECTION 47-1-220 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SHALL POST ON ITS WEBSITE THE NAMES OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CRIMES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 47-1-230 SO AS TO PROVIDE PERSONS CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANORS CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING OR POSSESSING ANIMALS, AND TO PROVIDE PERSONS CONVICTED OF FELONIES CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER MUST BE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING OR POSSESSING ANIMALS.
H5090, titled “Riley’s Act,” revises South Carolina’s animal cruelty laws in Title 47, Chapter 1 by substantially increasing criminal penalties and adding new enforcement tools. The bill raises fines and jail/prison terms for a range of offenses, including knowingly overloading, overworking, or ill-treating animals; torturing or needlessly mutilating animals; tail docking or similar prohibited alterations of horses and related animals; violations involving animal transport; artificially coloring animals; and unlawfully giving live animals as prizes or inducements. It also updates several existing provisions to make the penalties more severe for repeat or more serious conduct.
In addition to penalty increases, the bill creates two new enforcement measures. First, the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) must post on its website a searchable list of people convicted of violations of this chapter. Second, courts may prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor offenses under the chapter from owning or possessing animals, and must impose that prohibition for felony convictions. The bill keeps existing exceptions for accepted animal husbandry, veterinary practice, agricultural uses, wildlife management, and certain educational or exhibition activities.
The bill amends multiple sections of the South Carolina Code of Laws in Title 47, Chapter 1, which governs cruelty to animals and related offenses. It increases maximum fines and incarceration periods across several animal welfare offenses, changes some offenses from lower-level misdemeanor treatment to harsher misdemeanor or felony penalties, and adds post-conviction restrictions on animal ownership or custody. It also imposes a new public reporting requirement on SLED for convicted offenders. These changes would affect animal owners, custodians, breeders, transporters, agricultural operators, kennels, and others involved in the care, sale, or use of animals.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a strong animal-welfare enforcement approach, with a clear emphasis on deterrence, public transparency, and preventing repeat abuse. The overall framing suggests a protective and punitive policy response to animal cruelty rather than a regulatory loosening.
The main likely points of contention are the higher criminal penalties, the searchable public posting of convicted persons, and the mandatory or discretionary bans on owning or possessing animals after conviction. Those provisions may raise concerns among animal owners, breeders, agricultural interests, and civil-liberties advocates about severity, privacy, and collateral consequences. At the same time, the bill preserves broad exceptions for farming, veterinary care, wildlife management, and certain educational or exhibition activities, which suggests lawmakers anticipated concerns from agricultural and animal-use industries and tried to limit the bill’s reach to cruelty cases rather than ordinary husbandry or lawful animal-related practices.