HB 2806, known as the Roman Najera Act, revises Texas law governing the investigation and designation of dangerous dogs following reported attacks. The bill clarifies that an animal control authority may determine a dog to be dangerous after investigating an incident through observation, documentation of the dog's behavior, or examination of sworn witness statements. Once a dangerous dog determination is made, the authority must provide written notice to the dog's owner. The bill also protects the privacy of witnesses by making their identifying information confidential and limiting disclosure to governmental entities involved in enforcement.
The bill also establishes a modified dangerous dog determination process for certain large municipalities. In those jurisdictions, an animal control authority may determine that a dog is dangerous based on sworn witness statements and other available reports or information, without first observing the animal. This provision is narrowly applied to municipalities meeting a specified population threshold.
Finally, the legislation increases the penalty for repeat violations of dangerous dog requirements. While a first offense remains a Class C misdemeanor, a subsequent conviction is elevated to a Class B misdemeanor, increasing the potential criminal consequences for repeat noncompliance. The bill applies prospectively to incidents and offenses occurring on or after September 1, 2025, while also making witness confidentiality protections applicable to records released on or after that date.
The Committee Substitute for HB 2806 significantly narrows the scope of the originally filed bill. The introduced version proposed expanding criminal liability for dog attacks by creating a new Class B misdemeanor when an owner's criminal negligence resulted in a dog causing bodily injury, while retaining felony penalties for attacks causing serious bodily injury or death. It also created a new criminal offense prohibiting certain individuals previously convicted of dangerous dog offenses from possessing or controlling a dog for five years following conviction. Both of these substantive criminal law changes were removed from the committee substitute, which instead focuses almost exclusively on dangerous dog determination procedures and repeat violations of dangerous dog ownership requirements.
The Committee Substitute also softens several mandatory requirements contained in the introduced bill. As filed, the legislation required an animal control authority to investigate every reported dangerous dog incident and determine whether the dog was dangerous based on observation or sworn witness statements. The substitute restores greater discretion by providing that the animal control authority may investigate an incident and may determine that a dog is dangerous, while still requiring written notice if such a determination is made. Likewise, in the special procedures applicable to certain large municipalities, the originally filed bill required an investigation of qualifying incidents, whereas the committee substitute makes that investigation discretionary.
Although both versions retain witness confidentiality provisions, establish an alternative dangerous dog determination process for certain large municipalities, and increase the penalty for repeat violations of dangerous dog ownership requirements from a Class C to a Class B misdemeanor, the Committee Substitute ultimately shifts the bill's emphasis away from creating new criminal offenses and expanding criminal penalties for dog attacks. Instead, the substitute concentrates on improving the administrative process for dangerous dog determinations, protecting witness information, and strengthening enforcement against repeat violations of existing dangerous dog regulations.
Contact the Author
Rep. John Lujan
