Senate Bill S7527

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S7527

SPONSOR: MYRIE
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to repeal chapter 834 of the laws of 1940, relating to the
removal of certain policemen

 
PURPOSE:

To repeal chapter 834 of the laws of 1940, which limits the ability of
localities across the state to provide independent oversight of police.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 repeals chapter 834 of the laws of 1940. Section 2 provides
for the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

              

Chapter 834 of the laws of 1940 limits the degree to which localities
across the state can provide for independent oversight of police offi-
cers. Unlike other public employees, whose disciplinary and removal
proceedings are governed by section 75 of the Civil Service Law, chapter
834 imposes unique restrictions on removal procedures for police offi-
cers. While Civil Service Law § 75 allows agency heads to designate a
"deputy or other person" responsible for holding disciplinary
proceedings, chapter 834 provides that the authority to conduct removal
hearings for police officers can only be designated to a "deputy or
other employee" of the police agency head.  Courts have interpreted this
difference in terminology to mean that police disciplinary proceedings
must take place entirely within police department structures. In 2001,
the New York Police Department (NYPD) attempted to move certain officer
disciplinary hearings outside the Department's own trial room and into
the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), an independent
and impartial administrative law court whose administrative judges
preside over disciplinary cases involving hundreds of thousands of New
York City civil servants, including firefighters and correction offi-
cers. This move was blocked in court because OATH judges are not
"employees" of the NYPD Commissioner, and therefore cannot preside over
NYPD disciplinary hearings under chapter 834.

Public trust and confidence in law enforcement requires independent,
effective, and accessible mechanisms for holding police officers
accountable for misconduct. When police disciplinary proceedings are
governed by and held entirely within a police department's trial room,
public trust is undermined. Access to information is more restricted, as
unlike the hearing transcripts and recommended decisions produced by
agencies like OATH, documents generated from police department trial
room proceedings are confidential under state law. Even physical access
to the hearing rooms themselves can be more restricted when they occur
in police department spaces, as was reported during the 2019 discipli-
nary trial of NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo, in which the NYPD was criti-
cized for not providing sufficient space for members of the public and
the media who wished to observe the proceedings. Beyond practical space
concerns, there would also be great symbolic value in allowing these
hearings to proceed in a neutral venue not under the direct control of
the agency whose employee is facing discipline.

Repeal of chapter 834 would not, by itself, automatically change police
disciplinary procedures currently in place throughout the state, nor
would it alter the ultimate authority of agency heads to decide on and
impose disciplinary outcomes. Repeal of chapter 834 would simply allow
localities and police chiefs the authority to designate independent and
impartial adjudicators to preside over police disciplinary hearings and
thereby increase public confidence in the integrity of these
proceedings.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New Bill.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

To be determined.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.