Florida animal abusers may soon show up on a statewide list. What to know about SB 494
In 2015, an Ocala man pleaded guilty to three counts of cruelty to animals after stabbing and beating his then-girlfriend's dog, Molly, the previous year. The dog suffered a fractured skull and three stab wounds to the head.
Molly survived and became the namesake of Molly's Law, an ordinance adopted in Marion County that established a public registry listing people convicted in the county of animal cruelty-related crimes to allow residents, pet sellers and rescue organizations to make sure they are not placing an animal with an animal abuser.
A bill in this year's legislative session would make a similar registry statewide, much like the sex offender registry.
'Most notably, such access is critical to animal adoption organizations to ensure that perpetrators are disqualified as recipients of animals seeking placement,' said Sen. Tom Leek, R-St. Augustine, who filed the bill in the Senate.
Molly, an American boxer mix who became a beloved ambassador for animal rights, died in 2023 at the age of 15.
SB 494, Animal Cruelty is very short. It simply adds this requirement to state animal cruelty laws:
"Beginning January 1, 2026, the Department of Law Enforcement shall post on its website, in a searchable format prescribed by the department, the names of those individuals who have been convicted of, or who have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a violation of this section."
An identical bill, HB 455, was filed in the House by Rep. Meg Weinberger, R-Palm Beach Gardens. It doesn't go quite as far as Molly's Law, which also fines offenders an extra amount to cover the costs of the registry, requires them to notify the county if they move or change their name, and blocks them from owning or working with animals or living in the same residence as one.
There are currently 11 or 12 Florida counties with animal abuse registries, SPCA of Ocala President Lilly Baron (and the person who adopted Molly) told WESH.com, but they are not consistent, with different data and different periods of time for offenders to stay listed.
Florida dogfighting law: Florida man gets 7 years for dogfighting. What is Florida, federal law? How to spot signs
Hillsborough County started one just before Marion did. Volusia County added one after Ponce's Law — named after a 9-month-old Labrador puppy was beaten to death in Ponce Inlet — strengthened the severity of animal-abuse-related crimes and allowed judges to bar people convicted of animal cruelty from owning pets.
'The registry is the thing that's going to be the kicker, make the difference throughout the state," Baron said.
Leek also filed SB 502, which would strengthen penalties of anyone convicted of animal cruelty toward a domestic animal as a primary offense. In 2018, he was the primary sponsor of the House version of Ponce's Law.
According to Florida statutes:
It's a first-degree misdemeanor to unnecessarily overload, overdrive, torment, starve, mutilate, or kill any animal, or to carry them in a cruel or inhumane manner, punishable by up to a year in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
A person who intentionally excessively or repeatedly hurts an animal or kills one, or has custody or control of the animal and fails to prevent excessive pain or death, commits animal cruelty, a felony of the third degree, punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
If the person is found to have intentionally tortured or tormented the animal leading to injuries, mutilation or death must pay a minimum mandatory fine of $2,500 and undergo psychological counseling or complete an anger management treatment program on first offense.
On second or subsequent offenses, it's a minimum mandatory fine of $5,000 and a minimum mandatory six months in prison without eligibility of parole.
A person committing multiple acts of cruelty on an animal, or acts of cruelty on multiple animals, may be charged for each individual offense.
It's a third-degree felony to intentionally trip, fell, rope or lasso the legs of a horse for entertainment or sport purposes.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida animal cruelty registry bill would be similar to Molly's Law
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
28 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
San Francisco Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.
