BILL NUMBER:  S346

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act to amend the penal law, in relation to
establishing the crime of strangulation in the first degree; disregard
of banned employment procedures

 PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Establishes penalties for the use
of a chokehold.

 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

Section 1. Amends the penal law, section 121.11. Provides that a
person who uses any procedure known as a chokehold shall be guilty of
criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation.

Section 2. Amends the penal law by adding a new section, 121.13-a.
Establishes the crime of strangulation in the first degree; disregard
of banned employment procedures. Provides that a person commits
strangulation in the first degree when he or she disregards any
procedure banned by his or her employment, commits the crime of
criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation as defined in
section 121.11 and causes serious physical injury or death to another
person. Strangulation in the first degree; disregard of banned
employment procedures shall be a class B felony.

Section 3. Effective Date
              

 EXISTING LAW :  Article 121 of the penal law establishes penalties
for strangulation and related offenses and creates the crimes of
criminal obstruction and strangulation, and strangulation in the first
and second degrees.

 JUSTIFICATION :  In 1993, the New York City Police Department
completely banned its officers from using a procedure commonly
referred to as a "chokehold." According to the NY Daily News: "Members
of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds," the NYPD patrol guide clearly
states: "A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any
pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder
breathing to reduce intakes of air" (NYPD patrol guide clearly states
members cannot use chokeholds; New York Daily News Barry Paddock
Thomas Tracy; Friday, July 18, 2014).

Despite the ban, Bronx resident Anthony Baez died in 1994 as a result
of a chokehold. Baez's crime was throwing a football with some friends
and the football hit a cop's car. He was unarmed. The officer was
ultimately tried by a federal jury and convicted.

On Thursday, July 17, 2014, Eric Garner, who was also unarmed and
accused of selling loose cigarettes, was placed in a chokehold by an
officer of the NYPD. Despite Mr. Garner's audible pleas that he could
not breathe, the officers proceeded to put him in handcuffs. He died
later at the hospital. On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, a Staten Island
Grand Jury failed to bring an indictment against the officer who
placed Mr. Garner in the chokehold, despite the fact that the Medical
Examiner had previously ruled his death a homicide.

It is clear that the NYPD's ban on the use of chokeholds is not
sufficient to prevent police officers from using this method to
restrain individuals whom they are trying to arrest. Between 2009 and
2013, the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiated nine
complaints by people who said they had been subjected to a chokehold.
Not only has this supposed ban not been enforced, there is evidence
that the penalties for using a chokehold have resulted in little more
than the loss of vacation time. (New York Times, J David Goodman, July
21, 2014).

It is obvious that the NYPD is either unable or unwilling to enforce
its own employee manual. The use of chokeholds has resulted in too
many deaths. Criminal sanctions must be established for those who
continue to disregard this banned procedure.

 PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :  2014: S.7929 - Referred to Rules/A.10170
- Referred to Codes

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : None to state

 EFFECTIVE DATE : Immediately