Crimes: stalking.

Senator Ochoa Bogh’s proposal centers on a single, substantive shift: the stalking statute’s “credible threat” standard would be expanded to cover threats directed at a victim’s animal companions—pets, service animals, emotional support animals, or horses—within the framework of the existing offense. The core elements of stalking remain, focusing on willful, malicious, and repeated conduct intended to place the target or their immediate family in reasonable fear for safety, while the new animal-targeted threats are incorporated into that same framework.

The bill adds a series of mechanisms to accompany the expanded threat definition. Penalties case-by-case are elevated when a protective order is in effect, with state-prison options of two, three, or four years; prior qualifying felonies can trigger two-, three-, or five-year terms, and there is also a path for enhanced penalties in some prior-conviction scenarios. Courts may require sex-offender registration upon conviction under this section. In addition, the court may order counseling as a condition of probation or sentence suspension, and may issue protective orders up to ten years based on factors such as seriousness, risk of future violations, and information provided to the court. The measure broadens definitions of “harass” and “course of conduct” to require two or more acts over time, while excluding constitutionally protected activity, and it expands the meaning of “electronic communication” to encompass a wide range of devices and channels. It also preserves a labor-picketing carve-out from the section’s application and directs consideration of treatment under an established program, including potential certification and transfer to a hospital for treatment when appropriate.

From an implementation perspective, the bill is described as creating a state-mandated local program, with a no-reimbursement designation for local agencies and school districts. It requires review by the fiscal committee and envisions interaction with existing protective-order procedures, sentencing practices, and treatment pathways under established statutory frameworks. No statewide appropriation is included in the measure, placing primary cost considerations on local implementation activities. The changes are framed as applying within the current stalking statute rather than creating a new offense, extending the reach of criminal penalties and court remedies while aligning with updated definitions to reflect modern communications and animal-related protective concerns.

The proposal situates these changes within a broader policy context of victim protection and prosecutorial scope, extending safeguards to animal victims and integrating treatment and protective-order options into the criminal process. It alters enforcement and judicial considerations by broadening the evidentiary landscape for animal-targeted threats, shaping how prosecutors illustrate “credible threat” and “course of conduct” in cases that involve pets or service animals. Stakeholders—victims, animal-advocacy groups, law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts—face a framework in which animal-directed threats are prosecutable under stalking provisions, with long-term protective measures and potential treatment pathways, alongside existing labor protections.