BILL NUMBER: S7872

SPONSOR: FAHY
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the compar-
ison of fingerprints

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To allow a judge, either pre-trial or post-conviction, to order that a
fingerprint obtained in the investigation or prosecution of an individ-
ual be tested against state and national fingerprint identification
systems.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section two of the bill amends section 440.30 of the criminal procedure
law to allow a judge, upon a motion by a defendant after a conviction or
the entry of a guilty plea, to order that a fingerprint obtained in the
course of an investigation or prosecution of the defendant be compared
against the state and national fingerprint identification system upon a
              

showing that, had the results been admitted at trial or available prior
to the entry of the guilty plea, a reasonable probability exists that
the verdict would have been more favorable or the conviction would not
have resulted. Such fingerprint would have to comply with state or
federal requirements, as applicable.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Recently enacted legislation (Chapter 19 of 2012) that expanded the DNA
database also provided courts with the authority to order that DNA
samples obtained from an investigation be compared to the databank at
the request of the defendant. This was done based on the recognition
that DNA and the DNA databank are powerful tools for preventing and
solving crimes as well as establishing a defendant's innocence. Like
DNA, fingerprints and the fingerprint identification system have the
same abilities to identify the correct perpetrator, rule out suspects
and exonerate the innocent. However, a recent appellate division deci-
sion (Farrell v. LaBuda, 94 A.D.3d 1195) held that, in regard to a pre-
trial motion for a fingerprint comparison, the court had no authority to
direct the county district attorney to perform a fingerprint test. While
the Court of Appeals has not taken up this issue, this legislation would
remedy the current inconsistency in the law that treats fingerprint
evidence differently than DNA evidence.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2012: A.10269, Passed Assembly

2014: A.6915, Passed Assembly

2018: codes

2019-20 A2519 codes

2021-22 A2608 codes

2023-24 A5095 codes
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

To be determined

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Shall take effect immediately.