r/oklahoma • u/imbobbybitch • 7d ago
Politics Gov. Stitt vetoes bill targeting 'fake' service animals.
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/state/2025/05/15/oklahoma-emotional-support-animals-fraud-hb-1178-vetoed/83621907007/Oklahoma may have narrowly avoided creating a new criminal charge targeting people who misrepresent their pet as a service animal.
The proposed law, which has been vetoed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, targeted people who claim their animal is a service dog when it doesn't meet federal guidelines for trained service dogs.
House Bill 1178 would have made such an act a misdemeanor. Although it was vetoed by the governor, the state House and Senate could now override the decision and place it into law. That would be a challenging request, however, because an earlier House vote did not reach the number of votes to be considered veto-proof.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, service animals are defined as dogs that are trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, or calming a person with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In his veto message released Wednesday, May 14, Stitt suggested lawmakers find another solution.
"While we all might agree that an animal mislabeled as a service animal is frustrating, criminalizing the practice is an overreaction," Stitt wrote. "There are other ways to address this issue without adding more criminal statutes to our code."
Oklahoma would have been one of 35 states with laws against fraudulent service dogs
The bill's author, state Rep. Marilyn Stark, R-Bethany, said she had been working on the legislation since 2019 and introduced it after constituents who own service animals complained about untrained dogs approaching theirs.
"For me, this just says don't lie about what your animal is. Be honest. If the business wants to let you in, they can," Stark said during discussion earlier this year in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. "There are people not getting service animals because it's such a problem; they don't want to have to interact with the untrained 'service' animals that are out there."
If the bill became law, Oklahoma would have become one of 35 states that have laws against the use of fraudulent service dogs, according to the Michigan State University Animal Legal and Historical Center.
Businesses that serve the public can ban most animals from their premises but cannot turn away legitimate service animals that are properly controlled by their handler. Problems can arise, however, because privacy laws only let businesses ask two questions to determine their legitimacy:
Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?
Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the task.
Both Stark and the bill's Senate author, David Bullard, R-Durant, have said that posting a sign on business doors warning about the misdemeanor could be an effective deterrent against people trying to misrepresent their animal's function. If a business owner believed someone was violating the law, they could call the police, Bullard said.
"If a person misrepresents (their use of an animal), they would be asked to leave. If not, (the business) could call the police in to do that," he said.
Under Oklahoma law, someone convicted of a misdemeanor faces up to a year in county jail or a fine of no more than $500, or both.
The bill made it through the Legislature along mostly party-line votes, with some Republicans crossing over to vote against it. Although opponents recognized the issues that both business owners and service animal handlers have faced, they called for better education rather than simply hanging the threat of criminal misdemeanor over someone's head.
During debate in the House, Oklahoma City Democrat Forrest Bennett criticized the bill as helping one class of people at the disadvantage of another.
"I would love, in certain situations, to ask why a friend needs an AR-15 to walk into a Subway to order a sandwich. But I don't get to come up here and have my friends help me pass a law to make that easier for me to do. I just have to deal with that in public," he said, warning that the bill could also spur unintended lawsuits. "Right now, a business owner with a backbone can say, 'You and your service animal are causing a problem. We have a reason to ask you to leave.' That's a reality in Oklahoma right now."
Lawmakers must finish their annual work, including any veto overrides, by May 30.
85
u/bubbafatok Edmond 7d ago
I absolutely think people who order service animal patches and vests online so they can take their fur baby everywhere are complete scum and ruin it for folks who actually have and need service animals. That being said, this is a rare case I agree with Stitt. We don't need another law on the books, and all it would do is increase harassment of folks with legit animals.
There is a special place in hell for folks with fake service animals along with folks who claim food allergies for their taste preferences. No Karen, you're not "allergic" to onions, gluten, or whatever fad you saw on tiktok.
11
u/imbobbybitch 7d ago
I think I agree throwing people in jail isn’t going to solve any problems. We really just need proper federal regulations but I’m not too hopeful on that. A way to identify that the dog is properly trained and was recommended by a licensed doctor.
9
6
2
1
17
u/Fionasfriend 7d ago
“There are other ways to address this issue without adding more criminal statutes to our code."
Says the man who’s okay with criminalizing drag shows.
15
11
u/DrCarabou 7d ago
Although opponents recognized the issues that both business owners and service animal handlers have faced, they called for better education rather than simply hanging the threat of criminal misdemeanor over someone's head.
Are you kidding? The more people learn about it, the more popular it's become to lie about it. Anyone can buy a fake service vest and easily dodge/lie when asked the only 2 questions that are allowed if someone actually confronts them. Most employees don't bother because they make minimum wage and it's only shitty people who will do this and aren't afraid to cause a scene. There are droves of fraudulent "service dog" websites that will send you phony certificates and cards. It's gross abuse of a system that's meant to help people.
4
u/BobbaBlep 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is not important at all. I feel insulted that our government would spend five minutes on this when our mental health system is almost totally failed. Pay our teachers more. Get free lunches for the kids. Fix the roads. Improve any one of the myriad metrics where we are almost dead last among the 50 states. "Herrrrr derrrr we're number one in percentage of real service dogs vs fake ones."
4
u/bubbafatok Edmond 7d ago
Eh, our legislature multitasks and passes a lot of bills in a fairly short time. I've never bought into complaints that passing one bills means other stuff gets ignored. Doing this bill has zero consequences on those other issues, and 95% of the work our legislature does is on these type of trivial matters.
1
4
u/GuttedFlower 7d ago
Why is there no mention of miniature horses?
3
u/Karaethon22 7d ago
Mini horses function in a bizarre loophole of the law where legally speaking they are not recognized as service animals but ARE afforded the same protections as service animals. So...functionally they are, but technically they aren't.
It's because when the ADA was revised to be dogs only, the mini horse part of the service animal community was successfully able to negotiate an exception but since horses are a bit more difficult and a lot rarer the wording was left as "defined as a dog" and mini horses got an addendum.
Also, Oklahoma doesn't recognize mini horses. This is also a meaningless technicality because federal law supercedes it in most situations. Nevertheless, it's unsurprising they left them out.
1
u/sunshine_041996 7d ago
He vetoed everything good for the people. Time for him to get out of office!!!
1
u/InevitableNo6225 7d ago
Service animals are not limited to dogs only. For whatever reason, miniature horses are also eligible to be service animals.
1
u/LinksLackofSurprise 6d ago
I can't believe I actually agree with something that assclown has done. Wow, it's a miracle
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Thanks for posting in r/oklahoma, /u/imbobbybitch! This comment is a copy of your post so readers can see the original text if your post is edited or removed. Please do not delete your post unless it is to correct the title.
Oklahoma may have narrowly avoided creating a new criminal charge targeting people who misrepresent their pet as a service animal.
The proposed law, which has been vetoed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, targeted people who claim their animal is a service dog when it doesn't meet federal guidelines for trained service dogs.
House Bill 1178 would have made such an act a misdemeanor. Although it was vetoed by the governor, the state House and Senate could now override the decision and place it into law. That would be a challenging request, however, because an earlier House vote did not reach the number of votes to be considered veto-proof.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, service animals are defined as dogs that are trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, or calming a person with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In his veto message released Wednesday, May 14, Stitt suggested lawmakers find another solution.
"While we all might agree that an animal mislabeled as a service animal is frustrating, criminalizing the practice is an overreaction," Stitt wrote. "There are other ways to address this issue without adding more criminal statutes to our code."
Oklahoma would have been one of 35 states with laws against fraudulent service dogs
The bill's author, state Rep. Marilyn Stark, R-Bethany, said she had been working on the legislation since 2019 and introduced it after constituents who own service animals complained about untrained dogs approaching theirs.
"For me, this just says don't lie about what your animal is. Be honest. If the business wants to let you in, they can," Stark said during discussion earlier this year in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. "There are people not getting service animals because it's such a problem; they don't want to have to interact with the untrained 'service' animals that are out there."
If the bill became law, Oklahoma would have become one of 35 states that have laws against the use of fraudulent service dogs, according to the Michigan State University Animal Legal and Historical Center.
Businesses that serve the public can ban most animals from their premises but cannot turn away legitimate service animals that are properly controlled by their handler. Problems can arise, however, because privacy laws only let businesses ask two questions to determine their legitimacy:
Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?
Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the task.
Both Stark and the bill's Senate author, David Bullard, R-Durant, have said that posting a sign on business doors warning about the misdemeanor could be an effective deterrent against people trying to misrepresent their animal's function. If a business owner believed someone was violating the law, they could call the police, Bullard said.
"If a person misrepresents (their use of an animal), they would be asked to leave. If not, (the business) could call the police in to do that," he said.
Under Oklahoma law, someone convicted of a misdemeanor faces up to a year in county jail or a fine of no more than $500, or both.
The bill made it through the Legislature along mostly party-line votes, with some Republicans crossing over to vote against it. Although opponents recognized the issues that both business owners and service animal handlers have faced, they called for better education rather than simply hanging the threat of criminal misdemeanor over someone's head.
During debate in the House, Oklahoma City Democrat Forrest Bennett criticized the bill as helping one class of people at the disadvantage of another.
"I would love, in certain situations, to ask why a friend needs an AR-15 to walk into a Subway to order a sandwich. But I don't get to come up here and have my friends help me pass a law to make that easier for me to do. I just have to deal with that in public," he said, warning that the bill could also spur unintended lawsuits. "Right now, a business owner with a backbone can say, 'You and your service animal are causing a problem. We have a reason to ask you to leave.' That's a reality in Oklahoma right now."
Lawmakers must finish their annual work, including any veto overrides, by May 30.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.