senate Bill S4483

2013-2014 Legislative Session

Revises the procedures regulating the release of persons charged with criminal offenses pending trial

download bill text pdf

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Committee


  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed/Vetoed by Governor

do you support this bill?

Actions

view actions (2)
Assembly Actions - Lowercase
Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Jan 08, 2014 referred to codes
Apr 03, 2013 referred to codes

Co-Sponsors

S4483 - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A6799
Current Committee:
Senate Codes
Law Section:
Criminal Procedure Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §§510.30, 510.40, 530.20 & 530.40, add §530.42, CP L

S4483 - Bill Texts

view summary

Revises the procedures regulating the release of persons charged with criminal offenses pending trial.

view sponsor memo
BILL NUMBER:S4483

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to the issuance of securing orders

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Chief Judge of
the State.

This measure would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to reform the
State's bail statutes to: (1) require judges, when making bail
decisions, to consider public safety as well as the risk of flight;
and (2) establish a statutory presumption of release where defendants
are charged with non-violent offenses and they present no threat to
the community or risk of flight.

New York offers special challenges in achieving bail reform. In almost
every other state, judges are required by statute to consider public
safety when making a bail determination. In New York, they are not
required, or even permitted, to do so. Because of this, defendants in
New York are screened for their risk of failure to appear in court -
using a range of factors such as ties to the community, criminal
record, and past failure to appear - but not for the broader risk that
the defendant will continue to engage in criminal activity. As a
result, defendants may be put back on the street with insufficient
regard for public safety. Few, if any, would seriously argue that
judges should not consider the safety and well-being of people on our
streets or in our homes when making release decisions. This makes no
sense and certainly does not serve the best interests of our
communities and our citizens.

The time has come to join 46 other states, the District of Columbia
and the Federal government by changing New York's bail laws to require
judges to take into account public safety considerations. Fixing this
deficiency must be a top priority of any revision to our bail
statutes. Judges must be authorized to consider public safety as well
as the risk of failure to appear for court when making bail decisions.
To allow the present situation to continue is bad public policy at a
time when we need to do everything we can to be smart, effective and
principled, in combating crime and violence in our society.

But this should be just the start of a top-to-bottom revamping of the
rules governing bail in our state - a new vision of pretrial justice
in New York. Back in 1964, Robert F. Kennedy made a powerful case for
bail reform, saying: "Usually only one factor determines whether a
defendant stays in jail before he comes to trial. That factor is not
guilt or innocence. It is not the nature of the crime. It is not the
character of the defendant. That factor is, simply, money." While,
thanks to the efforts of reformers like Herb Sturz and others, much
has improved in our criminal justice system in New York since Kennedy
spoke these words, the reality is that we still have a long way to go
before we can claim that we have established a coherent, rational
approach to pre-trial justice. Our overriding goal must be to ensure
that pre-trial detention is reserved only for those defendants who
cannot safely be released or who cannot be relied upon to return to
court - and to do all we can to eliminate the risk that New Yorkers
are incarcerated simply because they lack the financial means to make


bail. More than simply being unfair, incarcerating indigent defendants
for no other reason than that they cannot meet even a minimum bail
amount strips our justice system of its credibility and distorts its
operation. Jailing defendants before trial can subject them to
economic and psychological hardship, limit their ability to assist in
their defense and place them at a serious disadvantage in the plea
bargaining process. It also places needless costs on our localities at
a time when we can ill afford to waste valuable public resources.

To avoid these results, our bail statutes must be reformed to make
clear that, where defendants are charged with non-violent offenses,
there are statutory presumptions that defendants who represent no
threat to public safety and no risk of flight shall be released
pending trial; and that, whenever defendants are released - whether on
bail or not, they will be released with the least restrictive
conditions possible unless prosecutors demonstrate that the defendant
poses a threat to public safety or a legitimate risk of failure to
appear in court. At the same time, to support judges when they make
determinations to release defendants pre-trial, we need to ensure that
they have authority to impose a range of release conditions when
necessary, such as curfews, drug testing, and substance abuse
treatment.

This measure would take effect on November first after it becomes law.

Legislative History: None. New proposal.

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                  4483

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                              April 3, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced by Sen. NOZZOLIO -- (at request of the Office of Court Admin-
  istration)  --  read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be
  committed to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the  issuance
  of securing orders

  THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature  finds  and  declares
that  there is a present need to revise New York's procedures regulating
release of persons charged with criminal offenses pending  trial.  These
procedures,  which  are  set  forth in title P of the criminal procedure
law, require criminal courts  to issue securing  orders  releasing  such
persons on their own recognizance, fixing bail upon the payment of which
they  must be released from custody, or remanding them to the custody of
corrections officials.
  Experience has shown that these procedures are  ill-designed  to  meet
today's  community needs. First, New York remains one of very few states
nationally that fails to require judges, in making  bail  decisions,  to
weigh  defendant's  threat  to public safety. This makes little sense in
modern American life where we as a state need to do all  we  can  to  be
effective  and  principled  in  protecting  communities  from  dangerous
persons charged with crime who may otherwise  be  eligible  for  release
pending  trial.  Second, as many have recognized, New York's bail rules,
as applied, can be particularly unfair to poor persons and  their  fami-
lies as bail beyond the financial wherewithal of a criminal defendant is
frequently  ordered  in low-level offenses even where such defendant may
pose little risk of flight.
  Accordingly, this act has two purposes. First, it seeks  to  recognize
what most other state jurisdictions and the federal government have long
accepted  -  that a defendant's danger to the community is a factor that
must be considered by a court  charged  with  determining  whether  that

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD08986-01-3

S. 4483                             2

defendant  should  be  released  pending trial. Second, this act aims to
ensure that the state's bail statutes are implemented  fairly  and  that
poor  persons  charged with crime should not be at any special disadvan-
tage when it comes to decisions regarding release pending trial.
  S  2.  The  opening  paragraph  of  paragraph  (a) of subdivision 2 of
section 510.30 of the criminal procedure  law  is  amended  to  read  as
follows:
  With  respect  to  any principal, the court must consider the kind and
degree of control or restriction that is necessary to secure his OR  HER
court  attendance  when  required  AND TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF ANY OTHER
PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY.  In determining [that  matter]  THESE  MATTERS,
the court must, on the basis of available information, consider and take
into account:
  S  3.  The section heading of section 510.40 of the criminal procedure
law is amended and a new subdivision 1-a is added to read as follows:
Application for recognizance  or  bail;  determination  thereof,  FIXING
             CONDITIONS  THEREFOR,  form of securing order and execution
             thereof.
  1-A. THE COURT MAY MAKE ANY SECURING ORDER SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH  (A)
OR  (B)  OF  SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITION OR
CONDITIONS THAT,  IN  ITS  DETERMINATION,  WILL  REASONABLY  ASSURE  THE
APPEARANCE  OF THE PRINCIPAL IN COURT WHEN REQUIRED OR THAT WILL REASON-
ABLY ASSURE THE SAFETY OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY. SUCH CONDI-
TION OR CONDITIONS MAY INCLUDE ANY THAT TO THE  COURT  SEEM  APPROPRIATE
PROVIDED  THAT  THEY REPRESENT THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OR CONDI-
TIONS NECESSARY.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THIS SUBDIVISION  SHALL
NOT AFFECT A COURT'S AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 530.12 AND 530.13 OF
THIS TITLE.
  S  4.  Subdivision  1  and  the  opening paragraph of subdivision 2 of
section 530.20 of the criminal procedure law, as amended by chapter  531
of the laws of 1975, are amended to read as follows:
  1. When the defendant is charged[, by information, simplified informa-
tion,  prosecutor's  information  or  misdemeanor  complaint,]  with  an
offense or offenses [of less  than  felony  grade  only]  OTHER  THAN  A
VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION 70.02 OF
THE  PENAL  LAW  OR  THE COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF A CLASS A
FELONY OR MANSLAUGHTER IN THE  SECOND  DEGREE  AS  PROVIDED  IN  SECTION
125.15  OF  THE  PENAL  LAW, the court must order recognizance [or bail]
UNLESS THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH A SECURING ORDER WILL NOT  REASON-
ABLY  SECURE  THE  DEFENDANT'S  COURT  ATTENDANCE  WHEN REQUIRED OR WILL
ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH  EVENT
THE COURT MUST ORDER BAIL.
  When  the  defendant  is  charged, by felony complaint, with a VIOLENT
felony OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF  SECTION  70.02  OF  THE
PENAL  LAW OR THE COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF A CLASS A FELONY
OR MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS PROVIDED IN  SECTION  125.15  OF
THE  PENAL  LAW, the court may, in its discretion, order recognizance or
bail except as otherwise provided in this subdivision:
  S 5. Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of section 530.40 of the criminal  proce-
dure  law,  subdivision 3 as amended by chapter 264 of the laws of 2003,
are amended to read as follows:
  1. When the defendant is charged with an offense or offenses [of  less
than  felony  grade only] OTHER THAN A VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE AS DEFINED
IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION 70.02 OF THE PENAL LAW OR  THE  COMMISSION
OR  ATTEMPTED  COMMISSION  OF  A  CLASS  A FELONY OR MANSLAUGHTER IN THE
SECOND DEGREE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 125.15 OF THE PENAL LAW, the  court

S. 4483                             3

must  order recognizance [or bail] UNLESS THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH
A SECURING ORDER  WILL  NOT  REASONABLY  SECURE  THE  DEFENDANT'S  COURT
ATTENDANCE WHEN REQUIRED OR WILL ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF ANY OTHER PERSON
OR  THE  COMMUNITY  IN  WHICH EVENT THE COURT MUST ORDER RECOGNIZANCE OR
BAIL.
  2. When the defendant is charged with  a  VIOLENT  felony  OFFENSE  AS
DEFINED  IN  SUBDIVISION  ONE  OF  SECTION 70.02 OF THE PENAL LAW OR THE
COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF A CLASS A FELONY  OR  MANSLAUGHTER
IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 125.15 OF THE PENAL LAW, the
court  may,  in  its discretion, order recognizance or bail. In any such
case in which an indictment (a) has resulted from an order  of  a  local
criminal  court  holding the defendant for the action of the grand jury,
or (b) was filed at a time when a felony  complaint  charging  the  same
conduct  was  pending in a local criminal court, and in which such local
criminal court or a superior court judge has issued an order of recogni-
zance or bail which is still effective, the superior court's  order  may
be in the form of a direction continuing the effectiveness of the previ-
ous order.
  3.  Notwithstanding  the  provisions of [subdivision] SUBDIVISIONS ONE
AND two OF THIS SECTION, a superior court may not order recognizance  or
bail, or permit a defendant to remain at liberty pursuant to an existing
order, after he OR SHE has been convicted of either: (a) a class A felo-
ny  or  (b) any class B or class C felony defined in article one hundred
thirty of the penal law committed or attempted  to  be  committed  by  a
person  eighteen  years of age or older against a person less than eigh-
teen years of age. In either case the court must commit  or  remand  the
defendant to the custody of the sheriff.
  S  6.  The  criminal  procedure law is amended by adding a new section
530.42 to read as follows:
S 530.42 ORDER OF RECOGNIZANCE OR BAIL: REVIEW OF SECURING ORDER.
  NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION 510.20 OF
THIS TITLE, UPON A DEFENDANT'S FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE  COURT  IN  A
CRIMINAL  ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN WHICH HE OR SHE IS CHARGED WITH ONE OR
MORE OFFENSES, OCCURRING NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER HE OR  SHE  WAS
ARRAIGNED  THEREON,  THE  COURT  MUST  ENTERTAIN  AN  APPLICATION BY THE
DEFENDANT FOR A CHANGE IN ANY SECURING ORDER  THEN  APPLICABLE  TO  SUCH
DEFENDANT  IN  SUCH  ACTION  OR  PROCEEDING.  UPON SUCH APPLICATION, THE
DEFENDANT MUST BE ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE  HEARD,  AND  THE  COURT
MUST  DETERMINE  THE APPLICATION DE NOVO, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EXISTING
SECURING ORDER AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT WOULD DETERMINE AN  APPLICA-
TION  FOR  RECOGNIZANCE OR BAIL MADE BY A DEFENDANT WHEN HE OR SHE FIRST
COMES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE  COURT.  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  FOREGOING,
THIS  SECTION  SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE (I) A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH ONE
OR MORE OFFENSES IN A SUPERIOR COURT BY  INDICTMENT  OR  SUPERIOR  COURT
INFORMATION  FILED  AFTER  THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN HELD FOR ACTION OF THE
GRAND JURY BY A LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT BEFORE  WHICH  A  FELONY  COMPLAINT
CHARGING  DEFENDANT WITH COMMISSION OF ONE OR MORE OFFENSES WAS PENDING,
AND (II) WHILE SUCH FELONY COMPLAINT WAS PENDING,  SUCH  LOCAL  CRIMINAL
COURT  RECEIVED  AND  DETERMINED AN APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO A SECURING ORDER ISSUED BY SUCH  COURT  UPON
DEFENDANT'S ARRAIGNMENT ON SUCH FELONY COMPLAINT.
  S 7. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.