Assembly Actions -
Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE |
|
---|---|
Nov 27, 2020 |
signed chap.299 |
Nov 18, 2020 |
delivered to governor |
Jul 21, 2020 |
returned to senate passed assembly ordered to third reading cal.300 substituted for a7970 |
Mar 11, 2020 |
referred to ways and means delivered to assembly passed senate |
Feb 27, 2020 |
advanced to third reading |
Feb 26, 2020 |
2nd report cal. |
Feb 25, 2020 |
1st report cal.476 |
Feb 04, 2020 |
reported and committed to finance |
Jan 08, 2020 |
referred to children and families returned to senate died in assembly |
Jun 19, 2019 |
referred to ways and means delivered to assembly passed senate ordered to third reading cal.1734 |
Jun 15, 2019 |
referred to rules |
Senate Bill S6533
Signed By Governor2019-2020 Legislative Session
Relates to requiring the video recording of interrogations of juveniles in juvenile delinquency proceedings in family court
download bill text pdfSponsored By
(D) Senate District
Archive: Last Bill Status - Signed by Governor
- Introduced
-
- In Committee Assembly
- In Committee Senate
-
- On Floor Calendar Assembly
- On Floor Calendar Senate
-
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- Delivered to Governor
- Signed By Governor
Actions
Votes
-
-
-
-
Floor Vote: Mar 11, 2020
aye (50)- Addabbo Jr.
- Amedore
- Bailey
- Benjamin
- Biaggi
- Boyle
- Brooks
- Carlucci
- Comrie
- Flanagan
- Funke
- Gaughran
- Gianaris
- Gounardes
- Griffo
- Harckham
- Hoylman-Sigal
- Jackson
- Jordan
- Kaminsky
- Kaplan
- Kavanagh
- Kennedy
- Krueger
- LaValle
- Lanza
- Little
- Liu
- Martinez
- May
- Mayer
- Metzger
- Montgomery
- Myrie
- Parker
- Persaud
- Ramos
- Ritchie
- Rivera
- Robach
- Sanders Jr.
- Savino
- Sepúlveda
- Serino
- Serrano
- Skoufis
- Stavisky
- Stewart-Cousins
- Tedisco
- Thomas
excused (4)
-
-
-
Floor Vote: Jun 19, 2019
aye (55)- Addabbo Jr.
- Amedore
- Antonacci
- Bailey
- Benjamin
- Biaggi
- Boyle
- Breslin
- Brooks
- Carlucci
- Comrie
- Felder
- Flanagan
- Funke
- Gaughran
- Gianaris
- Gounardes
- Griffo
- Harckham
- Hoylman-Sigal
- Jackson
- Jordan
- Kaminsky
- Kaplan
- Kavanagh
- Kennedy
- Krueger
- LaValle
- Lanza
- Little
- Liu
- Martinez
- May
- Mayer
- Metzger
- Montgomery
- Myrie
- Parker
- Persaud
- Ramos
- Ranzenhofer
- Ritchie
- Rivera
- Robach
- Salazar
- Sanders Jr.
- Savino
- Sepúlveda
- Serino
- Serrano
- Seward
- Skoufis
- Stavisky
- Stewart-Cousins
- Thomas
-
Jun 19, 2019 - Rules Committee Vote
S653318Aye0Nay1Aye with Reservations0Absent0Excused0AbstainedFeb 25, 2020 - Finance Committee Vote
S653318Aye2Nay2Aye with Reservations0Absent1Excused0Abstained -
-
2019-S6533 (ACTIVE) - Details
- See Assembly Version of this Bill:
- A7970
- Law Section:
- Family Court Act
- Laws Affected:
- Amd §§305.2 & 344.2, Fam Ct Act
2019-S6533 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo
BILL NUMBER: S6533 SPONSOR: MONTGOMERY TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the family court act, in relation to video recording of interrogations of juveniles in juvenile delinquency proceedings in family court This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of his Family Court Advisory and Rules Committee. Enactment of a requirement for video recording interrogations of suspects in certain cases, both adult and juvenile, as part of the FY 2017-2018 budget was a major step forward, consistent with recommenda- tions of the Unified Court System's Justice Task Force and reflective of the increasing national recognition of the value of video recording an accused's statements in enhancing the accuracy of criminal proceedings. With proliferation of inexpensive recording technology, there has been a growing national consensus in favor of recording interrogations. Coupled with advancing knowledge regarding the still-developing adolescent brain, the consensus has been particularly strong with respect to inter- rogations of youth. However, because of restrictions in the enumerated crimes requiring recording and numerous exceptions to the recording
mandate even in cases where it is applied, the new statute has almost no applicability to suspects who need it most, i.e., those accused of juve- nile delinquency whose cases are prosecuted in Family Court. The new law only applies to Class A-1 felonies (not including controlled substances offenses), predatory sex offenses (Penal Law §§ 130.95 and 130.96) and Class B violent felony homicide and sex offenses PENAL LAW ARTICLES 125 AND 130 DEFINED IN PENAL LAW § 70.02 - rare crimes by juveniles, almost all of which are prosecuted in adult criminal courts as juvenile offenses. See Penal Law § 10.00(18); CPL § 1.20(42). Accordingly, we propose this measure to require video recording of all interrogations of accused juvenile delinquents where such interrogations take place in law enforcement facilities approved for the questioning of youth. This measure amends sections 305.2 and 344.2 of the Family Court Act to require video recording of the entirety of interrogations in all juve- nile cases, including the provision of Miranda warnings and the waiver, if any, of rights by the juveniles. As in chapter 59 of the Laws of 2017, the measure requires that recording procedures be consistent with regulations to be promulgated by the Division of Criminal Justice Services. The measure applies to interrogations that take place in law enforcement facilities, which, pursuant to Family Court Act § 305.2(4) and section 205.20 of the Uniform Rules of the Family Court, must be in rooms that have been inspected and approved by the Chief Administrator of the Courts for the questioning of youth. All persons in the recording must be identifiable and the speech must be intelligible. As is applica- ble to other statements by juveniles, the recording would be subject to discovery pursuant to Family Court Act § 331.2. Further, like other factors in juvenile delinquency Huntley hearings, including the presence or absence of parents, location of questioning and the validity of any waiver of rights, the fact and quality of the recording would be among factors comprising the totality of circumstances affecting admissibility of accused juveniles' statements. As provided in chapter 59, failure to record would not, by itself, be a ground for granting a suppression motion. The widespread recognition of the value of recording interrogations reflects its advantages in enhancing the accuracy of the criminal proc- ess, advantages that may be even more compelling in juvenile cases. Our Justice Task Force, in January, 2012, issued "Recommendations Regarding Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations" as one means of amel- iorating the problem of false confessions that has led to wrongful convictions: The reform most universally urged by academics and others and most commonly adopted in other jurisdictions to identify and prevent false confessions is electronic recording of interrogations. Indeed, there was unanimous agreement on the Task Force about the many benefits of record- ing interrogations. The Task Force agreed that recording can aid not only the innocent, the defense and the prosecution, but also enhances public confidence in the criminal justice system by increasing transpar- ency as to what was said and done during the interrogation. Indeed, among its many benefits, recording helps identify false confessions; provides an objective and reliable record of what occurred during an interrogation; assists the judge and jury in determining a statement's voluntariness and reliability; prevents disputes about how an officer conducted himself or treated a suspect, and serves as a useful training tool to police officers. Id. at p. 2. While urging that recording be mandatory at least in certain circum- stances, the Task Force acknowledged the voluntary guidelines adopted in December, 2010, by the New York State District Attorneys Association that were developed in conjunction with the New York City Police Depart- ment, the New York State Police, the New York State Chiefs of Police Association, and the New York State Sheriffs' Association. Id. at p. 2, note 2. These New York State Guidelines for Recording Custodial Interro- gations of Suspects, inter alia, at pps 6-7, noted that questioning of accused juvenile delinquents should be recorded in court-approved juve- nile questioning rooms upon compliance with parental notification requirements, and suggested that simplified Miranda warnings be used. Significant State and Federal funds have already been invested in equip- ment enabling law enforcement agencies statewide to record interro- gations, both of adults and of juveniles. Since 2007, State funds have been made available to assist prosecutors and law enforcement in commu- nities both large and small to expand their capacities to record inter- rogations. In a July, 2013 press release, announcing one million dollars in State funds to expand video recording throughout the State, Governor Cuomo indicated that 345 police agencies in 58 of the 62 counties were already video recording interrogations. In a July, 2016 press release, characterizing video recording as "widely recognized as a best practice for enhancing the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system," Governor Cuomo and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., announced a $500,000 grant to expand the program, with preference accorded to agencies that had not received funds in 2013. Over one million dollars in State funds have thus been expended to date, result- ing in at least one law enforcement facility in every one of the State's 62 counties equipped to record interrogations. The factors favoring video recording of interrogations of adults are even more present when such recording is utilized for juveniles accused of acts of delinquency. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, in its publication, Reducing Risks: An Executive's Guide to Effective Juvenile Interview and Interrogation (IACP, Sept., 2012; www.iacp.org), recommended video recording of juvenile interrogations on the ground that lack of full development of the pre-frontal cortex in adolescents, which governs judgment, decision-making and understanding of consequences, makes them more likely to give false confessions. These adolescent development factors were central to decisions of the United States Supreme Court in cases outlawing the juvenile death penalty, limiting life without parole and requiring age to be considered a factor in determining whether school-based police interrogation was custodial for purposes of assessing the voluntariness of the juvenile's waiver of the right to counsel. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011); Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010). Significantly, the juvenile justice chapter of the comprehensive report, Reforming Criminal Justice, recently issued by the Academy for Justice, noted a consensus in favor of recording juvenile interrogations reached by "legal scholars, psychologists, law enforcement, and justice-system personnel," noting that it "reduces coercion, diminishes dangers of false confessions and increases reliability:" Recording creates an objective record and provides an independent basis to resolve credibility disputes about Miranda warnings, waivers, or statements. It enables a judge to decide whether a statement contained facts known to a guilty perpetrator or whether police supplied them to an innocent suspect. Recording protects police from false claims of abuse, enhances professionalism and reduces coercion. It enables police to focus on suspects' responses, to review details of an interview not captured in written notes, and to test them against subsequently discov- ered facts. Recording avoids distortions that occur when interviewers rely on memory or notes to summarize a statement. There is a national movement toward requiring video recording of inter- rogations of juveniles. By 2012, when the IACP report was issued, there were 16 States mandating recording by statute or case law, with many other states having legislation pending. Particularly noteworthy among these statutes are those in Illinois and North Carolina. Additionally, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in In Re Jerrell C.J., 699 N.W. 2d 110 (Wis., 2005), used its supervisory authority to require video recording of juvenile interrogations. The benefits not only to juveniles, but also to the justice system, of enhancing the requirements established in chapter 59 for video recording of interrogations of juveniles in New York are substantial. Requiring a transparent interrogation process will not only render false confessions and wrongful adjudications less likely but will provide an objective basis for Family Court to evaluate the validity of a juveniles' waivers of rights as well as the substance of the statements themselves. Judges have reported frequent cases involving disparities in testimony between witnesses to the interrogation, e.g., parents and police officers. Having an objective basis upon which the court can determine the accura- cy of witnesses' testimony will be invaluable. It protects the juve- niles' statutory and constitutional rights, while at the same time protecting law enforcement by providing a reliable record of the circum- stances surrounding interrogations and their compliance with statutory requirements and protocols. Further, it is likely to reduce the number of contested suppression hearings, thus facilitating expeditious resol- ution and timely adjudication of juvenile delinquency cases. Finally, enactment of this measure would not only be beneficial; it would also be practical and non-burdensome, as inexpensive and unobtrusive recording equipment is already widely available to law enforcement and prosecu- tors' agencies. This measure would take effect November first in the year next succeed- ing the year of enactment. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: OCA 2017-14. S4764 (2017-18); A.7690 (2017-18)
2019-S6533 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 6533 2019-2020 Regular Sessions I N S E N A T E June 15, 2019 ___________ Introduced by Sen. MONTGOMERY -- (at request of the Office of Court Administration) -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules AN ACT to amend the family court act, in relation to video recording of interrogations of juveniles in juvenile delinquency proceedings in family court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subdivision 8 of section 305.2 of the family court act, as amended by chapter 398 of the laws of 1983, is amended and a new subdi- vision 5-a is added to read as follows: 5-A. WHERE A CHILD IS SUBJECT TO INTERROGATION AT A FACILITY DESIG- NATED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS AS A SUITABLE PLACE FOR THE QUESTIONING OF JUVENILES PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FOUR OF THIS SECTION, THE ENTIRE INTERROGATION, INCLUDING THE GIVING OF ANY REQUIRED NOTICE TO THE CHILD AS TO HIS OR HER RIGHTS AND THE CHILD'S WAIVER OF ANY RIGHTS, SHALL BE VIDEO RECORDED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH STAND- ARDS ESTABLISHED BY RULE OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (E) OF SUBDIVISION THREE OF SECTION 60.45 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW. THE INTERROGATION SHALL BE RECORDED IN A MANNER SUCH THAT THE PERSONS IN THE RECORDING ARE IDENTIFIABLE AND THE SPEECH IS INTELLIGIBLE. A COPY OF THE RECORDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO SECTION 331.2 OF THIS ARTICLE. 8. In determining the suitability of questioning and determining the reasonable period of time for questioning such a child, the child's age, the presence or absence of his OR HER parents or other persons legally responsible for his OR HER care [and], notification pursuant to subdivi- sion three AND, WHERE THE CHILD HAS BEEN INTERROGATED AT A FACILITY DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS AS A SUITABLE PLACE FOR THE QUESTIONING OF JUVENILES, WHETHER THE INTERROGATION WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VIDEO-RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD09847-01-9 S. 6533 2 SUBDIVISION FIVE-A OF THIS SECTION shall be included among relevant considerations. § 2. Subdivision 3 of section 344.2 of the family court act, as added by section 2 of part VVV of chapter 59 of the laws of 2017, is amended to read as follows: 3. Where a respondent is subject to [custodial] interrogation by a public servant at a facility specified in subdivision four of section 305.2 of this article, the entire custodial interrogation, including the giving of any required advice of the rights of the individual being questioned, and the waiver of any rights by the individual, shall be recorded and governed in [accordance] A MANNER CONSISTENT with [the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and] STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY RULE OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES PURSUANT TO PARA- GRAPH (e) of subdivision three of section 60.45 of the criminal proce- dure law. THE INTERROGATION SHALL BE RECORDED IN A MANNER SUCH THAT THE PERSONS IN THE RECORDING ARE IDENTIFIABLE AND THE SPEECH IS INTELLIGI- BLE. A COPY OF THE RECORDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO SECTION 331.2 OF THIS ARTICLE. § 3. This act shall take effect on the first of November in the year next succeeding the year in which this act shall have become a law and shall apply only to confessions, admissions or other statements made on or after such effective date. Effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made by the division of criminal justice services on or before such effective date.
Comments
Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.
Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. 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.
Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.