Senate Bill S9475

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   9475
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                              March 16, 2026
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sen.  BAILEY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
   printed to be committed to the Committee on Investigations and Govern-
   ment Operations
 
 AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to "race-blind  charging"
   guidelines for prosecution agencies
 
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   Section 1. Legislative Intent. In recent years, the increasing  avail-
 ability  of  data regarding criminal justice has raised legitimate ques-
 tions regarding  racial  disparities  in  how  cases  are  investigated,
 charged, and prosecuted. Studies suggest that unknowing or "unconscious"
 bias  may  affect  many  decisions  within  the criminal justice system,
 despite what may be the best intentions  of  the  actors  involved.  One
 method  suggested to address this bias is to create institutional proce-
 dures to prevent bias from influencing important decisions. To  increase
 community  confidence  in the charging process, and to reduce the poten-
 tial for unconscious bias, some district attorney offices employ a meth-
 od whereby reports received from the police are  stripped  of  all  data
 from  which  the  race of the suspect may be determined so that at least
 the initial charging assessment of the case is done race-blind. In Cali-
 fornia through a partnership with the Stanford Computational Policy  Lab
 in  2021 created and implemented a race-blind charging system built into
 its case management system for most cases. This legislation ensures  New
 York does the same and takes the necessary steps to address the bias.
   §  2.  The  executive  law is amended by adding a new section 296-e to
 read as follows:
   § 296-E. RACE-BLIND CHARGING. 1.  (A)  BEGINNING  JANUARY  FIRST,  TWO
 THOUSAND TWENTY-SEVEN, THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL
 DEVELOP, ISSUE, AND PUBLISH "RACE-BLIND CHARGING" GUIDELINES FOR A PROC-
 ESS  WHEREBY  ALL  PROSECUTION  AGENCIES,  FOR  PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION
 DEFINED AS AGENCIES, OR BRANCHES OF AGENCIES,  THAT  PROSECUTE  CRIMINAL
 VIOLATIONS  OF  THE  LAW  AS FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS, SHALL IMPLEMENT A
 PROCESS BY WHICH AN INITIAL REVIEW OF A CASE FOR POTENTIAL  CHARGING  IS
 PERFORMED  BASED  ON  INFORMATION, INCLUDING POLICE REPORTS AND CRIMINAL
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
              

                                                            LBD14563-01-6
 S. 9475                             2
 
 HISTORIES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FROM  WHICH  DIRECT  MEANS  OF
 IDENTIFYING  THE  RACE  OF  THE  SUSPECT,  VICTIM,  OR WITNESS HAVE BEEN
 REMOVED OR REDACTED.
   (B) FOLLOWING SUCH DEPARTMENT'S GUIDELINES, PROSECUTION AGENCIES SHALL
 INDEPENDENTLY  DEVELOP AND EXECUTE VERSIONS OF THIS REDACTION AND REVIEW
 PROCESS.
   2. BEGINNING JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-EIGHT, CASES  RECEIVED
 FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SUSPECT CRIMINAL HISTORY DOCUMENTATION
 SHALL  BE  REDACTED, BY THE RECEIVING PROSECUTION AGENCY, IN ORDER TO BE
 USED FOR A RACE-BLIND INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION, WHICH  SHALL  PRECEDE
 THE ORDINARY CHARGING EVALUATION. SUCH REDACTION MAY OCCUR IN A SEPARATE
 VERSION OF THE DOCUMENTS AND MAY BE DONE MECHANICALLY, BY HAND PERFORMED
 BY  PERSONNEL  NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHARGING OF THE CASE, OR BY AUTO-
 MATION WITH THE USE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, SO LONG AS THE METHOD  USED
 REASONABLY  ENSURES  CORRECT  REDACTION. THE REDACTION MAY BE APPLIED TO
 THE ENTIRE REPORT OR TO ONLY THE "NARRATIVE" PORTION OF  THE  REPORT  SO
 LONG  AS  THE  PORTION  SUBMITTED  FOR  INITIAL  REVIEW IS SUFFICIENT TO
 PERFORM THAT REVIEW AND THE UNREDACTED PORTIONS  ARE  NOT  PART  OF  THE
 INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION.
   3.  THE  INITIAL  CHARGING  EVALUATION  BASED ON REDACTED INFORMATION,
 INCLUDING REDACTED REPORTS, CRIMINAL HISTORIES,  AND  NARRATIVES,  SHALL
 DETERMINE  WHETHER  THE CASE SHOULD BE CHARGED OR NOT BE CHARGED.  INDI-
 VIDUAL CHARGES SHALL NOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS INITIAL  CHARGING  EVALU-
 ATION  STAGE.  OTHER  EVIDENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS INITIAL
 CHARGING EVALUATION SO LONG  AS  THE  OTHER  EVIDENCE  DOES  NOT  REVEAL
 REDACTED  FACTS. THE INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A
 PROSECUTOR WHO DOES NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REDACTED  FACTS  FOR  THAT
 CASE.
   4.  AFTER  COMPLETION OF A RACE-BLIND INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION, THE
 CASE SHALL PROCEED TO A SECOND, COMPLETE REVIEW FOR CHARGING USING UNRE-
 DACTED REPORTS AND ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IN WHICH THE  MOST  APPLICABLE
 INDIVIDUAL  CHARGES  AND ENHANCEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AND CHARGED IN A
 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, OR THE CASE MAY BE SUBMITTED TO A GRAND JURY.
   5. (A) EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE DOCUMENTED AS PART
 OF THE CASE RECORD:
   (I) THE INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION DETERMINED THAT THE  CASE  NOT  BE
 CHARGED  AND  THE SECOND REVIEW DETERMINED THAT A CHARGE SHALL BE FILED;
 AND
   (II) THE INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION DETERMINED THAT THE CASE SHALL BE
 CHARGED AND THE SECOND REVIEW DETERMINED THAT NO CHARGE BE FILED.
   (B) THE EXPLANATION FOR THE CHARGING DECISION CHANGE  SHALL  BE  DOCU-
 MENTED AS PART OF THE CASE RECORD.
   (C)  THE  DOCUMENTED CHANGE BETWEEN THE RESULT OF THE INITIAL CHARGING
 EVALUATION AND THE SECOND REVIEW, AS WELL AS  THE  EXPLANATION  FOR  THE
 CHANGE,  SHALL  BE DISCLOSED, UPON REQUEST, AFTER SENTENCING IN THE CASE
 OR DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES COMPRISING THE CASE, SUBJECT  TO  ANY  OTHER
 APPLICABLE LAW.
   (D)  IF  A PROSECUTION AGENCY WAS UNABLE TO PUT A CASE THROUGH A RACE-
 BLIND INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION, THE REASON FOR THAT  INABILITY  SHALL
 BE  DOCUMENTED  AND  RETAINED BY THE AGENCY. THIS DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE
 MADE AVAILABLE BY THE AGENCY UPON REQUEST.
   (E) THE COUNTY SHALL COLLECT THE DATA RESULTING  FROM  THE  RACE-BLIND
 INITIAL  CHARGING  EVALUATION  PROCESS  AND  MAKE THE DATA AVAILABLE FOR
 RESEARCH PURPOSES. EACH PROSECUTION AGENCY MAY REMOVE OR EXCLUDE CERTAIN
 CLASSES OF CRIMES OR FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES  FROM  A  RACE-BLIND  INITIAL
 CHARGING  EVALUATION. THIS LIST OF EXCLUSIONS AND THE REASONS FOR EXCLU-
 S. 9475                             3
 
 SION SHALL BE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT  OF  JUSTICE  AND
 MEMBERS  OF  THE  PUBLIC.  DUE  TO  THE  INCREASED RELIANCE ON VICTIM OR
 WITNESS  CREDIBILITY,  THE  AVAILABILITY  OF  ADDITIONAL  DEFENSES,  THE
 INCREASED  RELIANCE ON FORENSICS FOR THE CHARGING DECISION, OR THE RELE-
 VANCE OF RACIAL ANIMUS TO THE CHARGING DECISION, EACH OF  THE  FOLLOWING
 CRIMES  MAY  BE  EXCLUDED  FROM A RACE-BLIND INITIAL CHARGING EVALUATION
 PROCESS:
   (I) HOMICIDES;
   (II) HATE CRIMES;
   (III)  CHARGES  ARISING  FROM  A  PHYSICAL  CONFRONTATION  WHERE  THAT
 CONFRONTATION IS CAPTURED IN VIDEO AS EVIDENCE;
   (IV) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX CRIMES;
   (V) GANG CRIMES;
   (VI) CASES ALLEGING EITHER SEXUAL ASSAULT OR PHYSICAL ABUSE OR NEGLECT
 WHERE THE CHARGING DECISION RELIES UPON EITHER A FORENSIC INTERVIEW OF A
 CHILD OR INTERVIEWS OF MULTIPLE VICTIMS OR MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS;
   (VII) CASES INVOLVING FINANCIAL CRIMES WHERE THE REDACTION OF DOCUMEN-
 TATION  IS  NOT  PRACTICABLE OR IS COST PROHIBITIVE DUE TO THE VOLUME OF
 REDACTIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED  TO,  OTHER  CRIMES  SOUNDING  IN
 FRAUD CONSISTING OF VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTATION;
   (VIII)  CASES  INVOLVING  PUBLIC INTEGRITY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
 TO, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CRIMES; AND
   (IX) CASES IN WHICH THE PROSECUTION  AGENCY  ITSELF  INVESTIGATED  THE
 ALLEGED  CRIME  OR  PARTICIPATED IN THE PRECHARGING INVESTIGATION OF THE
 CRIME BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE  REVIEW  OF
 SEARCH  WARRANTS OR ADVISING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE COURSE OF THE INVES-
 TIGATION.
   6. CASES IN WHICH THE PROSECUTION AGENCY INITIATED  THE  CHARGING  AND
 FILING OF THE CASE BY WAY OF A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT OR WHERE THE CHARG-
 ES  AROSE  FROM  A  GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION, THAT THIS SECTION CONTAINS
 COSTS MANDATED BY THE STATE, REIMBURSEMENT TO LOCAL AGENCIES AND  SCHOOL
 DISTRICTS FOR THOSE COSTS SHALL BE MADE BY THAT STATE TO THE LOCAL AGEN-
 CIES AND OR SCHOOL DISTRICT AFFECTED.
   §  3.  Severability.  If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
 section or part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of  competent
 jurisdiction  to  be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or
 invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation
 to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof
 directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment  shall  have
 been rendered. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the legislature
 that  this  act  would have been enacted even if such invalid provisions
 had not been included herein.
   § 4. This act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after
 it shall have become a law. Effective immediately, the addition,  amend-
 ment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implemen-
 tation  of  this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and
 completed on or before such effective date.