S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   3964
 
                        2017-2018 Regular Sessions
 
                           I N  A S S E M B L Y
 
                             January 30, 2017
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by M. of A. LENTOL -- read once and referred to the Committee
   on Codes
 
 AN  ACT  to  amend  the criminal procedure law, in relation to requiring
   electronic recordation of custodial interrogations
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   Section  1.   Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as
 the "uniform electronic recordation of custodial interrogations act".
   § 2. The criminal procedure law is amended by adding a new article  66
 to read as follows:
                                ARTICLE 66
      UNIFORM ELECTRONIC RECORDATION OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS ACT
 SECTION 66.00 DEFINITIONS.
         66.05 ELECTRONIC RECORDING REQUIREMENT.
         66.10 NOTICE AND CONSENT NOT REQUIRED.
         66.15 EXCEPTIONS.
         66.20 NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE UNRECORDED STATEMENT.
         66.25 PROCEDURAL REMEDIES.
         66.30 RULES RELATING TO ELECTRONIC RECORDING.
         66.35 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
         66.40 SELF-AUTHENTICATING.
         66.45 NO RIGHT TO ELECTRONIC RECORDING OR TRANSCRIPT.
         66.50 RELATION  TO  ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL
                COMMERCE ACT.
 § 66.00 DEFINITIONS.
   AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE:
   1. "CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION" MEANS QUESTIONING OR OTHER CONDUCT  BY  A
 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHICH IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO ELICIT AN INCRIMI-
 NATING  RESPONSE  FROM AN INDIVIDUAL AND OCCURS WHEN REASONABLE INDIVID-
 UALS IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD CONSIDER THEMSELVES IN CUSTODY.
   2. "ELECTRONIC RECORDING" MEANS AN AUDIO RECORDING OR AUDIO AND  VIDEO
 RECORDING  THAT  ACCURATELY  RECORDS  A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. "RECORD
 ELECTRONICALLY" AND "RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY" HAVE A CORRESPONDING MEAN-
 ING.
              

 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                            LBD03725-01-7

 A. 3964                             2
 
   3. "LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY" MEANS  A  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITY  OR  PERSON
 AUTHORIZED  BY  A  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITY OR STATE LAW TO ENFORCE CRIMINAL
 LAWS OR INVESTIGATE SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.  THE  TERM  INCLUDES  A
 NONGOVERNMENTAL  ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
 CRIMINAL  LAWS OR INVESTIGATE SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. THE TERM DOES
 NOT INCLUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
   4. "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" MEANS:
   (A) AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHOSE RESPONSI-
 BILITIES INCLUDE ENFORCING  CRIMINAL  LAWS  OR  INVESTIGATING  SUSPECTED
 CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; OR
   (B)  AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING AT THE REQUEST OR DIRECTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
 DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
   5. "PERSON" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, BUSINESS TRUST, STATUTO-
 RY TRUST, ESTATE, TRUST, PARTNERSHIP, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ASSOCI-
 ATION, JOINT VENTURE, PUBLIC  CORPORATION,  GOVERNMENT  OR  GOVERNMENTAL
 SUBDIVISION,  AGENCY,  OR INSTRUMENTALITY, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR COMMER-
 CIAL ENTITY.
   6. "PLACE OF DETENTION" MEANS A FIXED LOCATION UNDER THE CONTROL OF  A
 LAW  ENFORCEMENT  AGENCY  WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT ALLEGED
 CRIMES OR OFFENSES. THE TERM INCLUDES BUT IS  NOT  LIMITED  TO  A  JAIL,
 POLICE OR SHERIFF'S STATION, HOLDING CELL, AND CORRECTIONAL OR DETENTION
 FACILITY.
   7.  "STATE" MEANS A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-
 BIA, PUERTO RICO, THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, OR ANY TERRITORY  OR
 INSULAR POSSESSION SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
   8.  "STATEMENT" MEANS A COMMUNICATION WHETHER ORAL, WRITTEN, ELECTRON-
 IC, OR NONVERBAL.
 § 66.05 ELECTRONIC RECORDING REQUIREMENT.
   1. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY SECTION 66.15 OF  THIS  ARTICLE,  A
 CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AT A PLACE OF DETENTION, INCLUDING THE GIVING OF
 ANY REQUIRED WARNING, ADVICE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEING QUES-
 TIONED, AND THE WAIVER OF ANY RIGHTS BY THE INDIVIDUAL, MUST BE RECORDED
 ELECTRONICALLY  IN  ITS ENTIRETY BY BOTH AUDIO AND VIDEO MEANS WHEN SUCH
 INTERROGATION RELATES TO ANY FELONY OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN THE PENAL LAW.
   2. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONDUCTS A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION  TO
 WHICH  SUBDIVISION  ONE  OF  THIS SECTION APPLIES WITHOUT ELECTRONICALLY
 RECORDING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE OFFICER SHALL  PREPARE  A  WRITTEN  OR
 ELECTRONIC  REPORT  EXPLAINING  THE  REASON  FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THIS
 SECTION AND SUMMARIZING THE  CUSTODIAL  INTERROGATION  PROCESS  AND  THE
 INDIVIDUAL'S STATEMENTS.
   3.  A  LAW  ENFORCEMENT  OFFICER  SHALL PREPARE THE REPORT REQUIRED BY
 SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER  COMPLETING
 THE INTERROGATION.
   4. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT MADE OUTSIDE
 THE  COURSE OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OR A STATEMENT MADE IN RESPONSE
 TO A QUESTION ASKED ROUTINELY DURING THE PROCESSING OF THE ARREST OF  AN
 INDIVIDUAL.
 § 66.10 NOTICE AND CONSENT NOT REQUIRED.
   NOTWITHSTANDING  ANY  LAW  TO  THE CONTRARY, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
 CONDUCTING A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO  OBTAIN  CONSENT
 TO  ELECTRONIC  RECORDING  FROM  THE INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED OR TO
 INFORM THE INDIVIDUAL THAT AN ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS BEING MADE OF  THE
 INTERROGATION. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT PERMIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR
 A  LAW  ENFORCEMENT  AGENCY TO RECORD A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AN
 INDIVIDUAL AND SUCH INDIVIDUAL'S LAWYER.
 § 66.15 EXCEPTIONS.

 A. 3964                             3
 
   1.  A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05 OF  THIS  ARTICLE
 OTHERWISE  APPLIES  NEED  NOT BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY IF RECORDING IS
 NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFI-
 CER CONDUCTING THE INTERROGATION SHALL RECORD ELECTRONICALLY AN EXPLANA-
 TION  OF  THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE CONDUCTING THE INTERROGATION,
 IF FEASIBLE, OR AS  SOON  AS  PRACTICABLE  AFTER  THE  INTERROGATION  IS
 COMPLETED.
   2.  (A) A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTI-
 CLE OTHERWISE APPLIES NEED NOT BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY IF  THE  INDI-
 VIDUAL TO BE INTERROGATED INDICATES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WILL NOT PARTIC-
 IPATE  IN  THE  INTERROGATION  IF  IT  IS  RECORDED  ELECTRONICALLY.  IF
 FEASIBLE,  THE  AGREEMENT  TO  PARTICIPATE  WITHOUT  RECORDING  MUST  BE
 RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.
   (B)  IF,  DURING  A  CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05 OF
 THIS ARTICLE OTHERWISE APPLIES, THE INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED  INDI-
 CATES  THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN FURTHER INTERROGATION
 UNLESS ELECTRONIC RECORDING  CEASES,  THE  REMAINDER  OF  THE  CUSTODIAL
 INTERROGATION  NEED  NOT  BE  RECORDED  ELECTRONICALLY. IF FEASIBLE, THE
 INDIVIDUAL'S AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE WITHOUT FURTHER RECORDING MUST  BE
 RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.
   (C) A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITH INTENT TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENT OF
 ELECTRONIC RECORDING IN SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE, MAY NOT ENCOURAGE
 AN INDIVIDUAL TO REQUEST THAT A RECORDING NOT BE MADE.
   3.  IF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OCCURS IN ANOTHER STATE IN COMPLIANCE
 WITH THAT STATE'S LAW OR IS CONDUCTED BY A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN-
 CY IN COMPLIANCE  WITH  FEDERAL  LAW,  THE  INTERROGATION  NEED  NOT  BE
 RECORDED  ELECTRONICALLY  UNLESS  THE  INTERROGATION  IS  CONDUCTED WITH
 INTENT TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENT OF ELECTRONIC  RECORDING  SET  FORTH  IN
 SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE.
   4.  (A) A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTI-
 CLE OTHERWISE APPLIES NEED NOT BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY IF THE  INTER-
 ROGATION  OCCURS WHEN NO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONDUCTING THE INTERRO-
 GATION HAS KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS  AND  CIRCUMSTANCES  THAT  WOULD  LEAD  AN
 OFFICER REASONABLY TO BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED MAY
 HAVE  COMMITTED  AN ACT FOR WHICH SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE REQUIRES
 THAT A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.
   (B) IF, DURING A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION UNDER PARAGRAPH (A)  OF  THIS
 SUBDIVISION, THE INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED REVEALS FACTS AND CIRCUM-
 STANCES  GIVING  A  LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONDUCTING THE INTERROGATION
 REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN ACT HAS BEEN COMMITTED FOR WHICH SECTION 66.05
 OF THIS ARTICLE REQUIRES THAT  A  CUSTODIAL  INTERROGATION  BE  RECORDED
 ELECTRONICALLY,  CONTINUED  CUSTODIAL  INTERROGATION CONCERNING THAT ACT
 MUST BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY, IF FEASIBLE.
   5. A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05  OF  THIS  ARTICLE
 OTHERWISE  APPLIES NEED NOT BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY IF A LAW ENFORCE-
 MENT OFFICER CONDUCTING THE  INTERROGATION  OR  THE  OFFICER'S  SUPERIOR
 REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT ELECTRONIC RECORDING WOULD DISCLOSE THE IDENTI-
 TY  OF  A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT OR JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF AN OFFICER,
 THE INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED, OR ANOTHER  INDIVIDUAL.  IF  FEASIBLE
 AND  CONSISTENT WITH THE SAFETY OF A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, AN EXPLANA-
 TION OF THE  BASIS  FOR  THE  BELIEF  THAT  ELECTRONIC  RECORDING  WOULD
 DISCLOSE THE INFORMANT'S IDENTITY MUST BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY AT THE
 TIME OF THE INTERROGATION. IF CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDING OF THE BASIS FOR
 THE  BELIEF IS NOT FEASIBLE, THE RECORDING MUST BE MADE AS SOON AS PRAC-
 TICABLE AFTER THE INTERROGATION IS COMPLETED.

 A. 3964                             4
 
   6. (A) ALL OR PART OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO WHICH SECTION 66.05
 OF THIS ARTICLE OTHERWISE APPLIES NEED NOT BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY TO
 THE EXTENT THAT RECORDING IS NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE  THE  AVAILABLE  ELEC-
 TRONIC  RECORDING EQUIPMENT FAILS, DESPITE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE OF THE
 EQUIPMENT, AND TIMELY REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
   (B) IF BOTH AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION ARE
 OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE, RECORDING MAY BE BY
 AUDIO  ALONE  IF  A  TECHNICAL  PROBLEM IN THE VIDEO RECORDING EQUIPMENT
 PREVENTS VIDEO RECORDING, DESPITE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE OF  THE  EQUIP-
 MENT, AND TIMELY REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
   (C) IF BOTH AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION ARE
 OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE, RECORDING MAY BE BY
 VIDEO  ALONE  IF  A  TECHNICAL  PROBLEM IN THE AUDIO RECORDING EQUIPMENT
 PREVENTS AUDIO RECORDING, DESPITE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE OF  THE  EQUIP-
 MENT, AND TIMELY REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
   7.  IF  THE  PROSECUTION  RELIES  ON  ANY  EXCEPTION SET FORTH IN THIS
 SECTION TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO RECORD ELECTRONICALLY A CUSTODIAL INTER-
 ROGATION, THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE  EVIDENCE
 THAT THE EXCEPTION APPLIES.
 § 66.20 NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE UNRECORDED STATEMENT.
   IF  THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO INTRODUCE IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF A STATE-
 MENT MADE DURING A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO  WHICH  SECTION  66.05  OF
 THIS  ARTICLE  APPLIES WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY, THE PROSE-
 CUTION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 240.45 OF  THIS  CHAPTER,  SHALL  SERVE  THE
 DEFENDANT  WITH  WRITTEN  NOTICE  OF THAT INTENT AND OF ANY EXCEPTION ON
 WHICH THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO RELY.
 § 66.25 PROCEDURAL REMEDIES.
   1. UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT ANY EXCEPTION IN SECTION 66.15 OF  THIS
 ARTICLE  APPLIES,  THE  COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE FAILURE TO RECORD ELEC-
 TRONICALLY ALL OR PART OF A CUSTODIAL  INTERROGATION  TO  WHICH  SECTION
 66.05  OF  THIS  ARTICLE APPLIES IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STATEMENT MADE
 DURING THE INTERROGATION IS ADMISSIBLE, INCLUDING WHETHER IT WAS  VOLUN-
 TARILY MADE.
   2.  IF THE COURT ADMITS INTO EVIDENCE A STATEMENT MADE DURING A CUSTO-
 DIAL INTERROGATION THAT WAS NOT RECORDED  ELECTRONICALLY  IN  COMPLIANCE
 WITH SECTION 66.05 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE COURT, ON REQUEST OF THE DEFEND-
 ANT, SHALL GIVE A CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY.
 § 66.30 RULES RELATING TO ELECTRONIC RECORDING.
   1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND REGU-
 LATIONS  TO  IMPLEMENT THIS ARTICLE AND MONITOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES
 BY EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT IS A  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITY  OF  THIS
 STATE.
   2.  THE  RULES  ADOPTED  UNDER  SUBDIVISION  ONE OF THIS SECTION SHALL
 ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
   (A) HOW AN ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION  MUST  BE
 MADE;
   (B) THE COLLECTION AND REVIEW OF ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS, OR THE ABSENCE
 THEREOF, BY SUPERVISORS IN EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY;
   (C)  THE  ASSIGNMENT  OF  SUPERVISORY  RESPONSIBILITIES AND A CHAIN OF
 COMMAND TO PROMOTE INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY;
   (D) A PROCESS FOR EXPLAINING NONCOMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURES AND  IMPOS-
 ING  ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS FOR A FAILURE TO COMPLY THAT IS NOT JUSTI-
 FIED;
   (E) A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM EXPRESSLY IMPOSING ON INDIVIDUALS IN SPECIFIC
 POSITIONS A DUTY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STAFFING, EDUCATION,  TRAINING,  AND
 MATERIAL RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THIS ARTICLE;

 A. 3964                             5
 
   (F)  A  PROCESS  FOR  MONITORING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF AN ELECTRONIC
 RECORDING; AND
   (G) A PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THAT THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF ALL OR PART
 OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS IDENTIFIED, ACCESSIBLE AND PRESERVED.
   3.  THE  RULES  ADOPTED UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS
 SECTION FOR VIDEO RECORDING  SHALL  CONTAIN  STANDARDS  FOR  THE  ANGLE,
 FOCUS,  AND  FIELD  OF  VISION  OF  A  RECORDING DEVICE WHICH REASONABLY
 PROMOTE ACCURATE RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AT  A  PLACE  OF
 DETENTION AND RELIABLE ASSESSMENT OF ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS.
   4.  EACH  LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT IS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN THIS
 STATE SHALL ADOPT AND ENFORCE RULES PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE  DISCI-
 PLINE  OF  A  LAW  ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOUND BY A COURT OR THE AGENCY TO
 HAVE VIOLATED THIS ARTICLE. THE RULES SHALL PROVIDE A RANGE OF DISCIPLI-
 NARY SANCTIONS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTI-
 CLE.
 § 66.35 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
   1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT IS  A  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITY  IN  THIS
 STATE  WHICH  HAS  IMPLEMENTED PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENFORCE
 THE RULES PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECTION  66.30  OF  THIS  ARTICLE  AND
 ENSURE  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THIS ARTICLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO CIVIL LIABILITY
 FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE.
   2. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO CREATE A RIGHT  OF
 ACTION AGAINST ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
 § 66.40 SELF-AUTHENTICATING.
   1.  IN  ANY PRETRIAL OR POST TRIAL PROCEEDING, AN ELECTRONIC RECORDING
 OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING IF IT IS ACCOMPANIED
 BY A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY SWORN UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION  BY  AN
 APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
   2. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT LIMIT THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CHALLENGE
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF AN ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
 UNDER ANY LAW OF THIS STATE OTHER THAN THIS ARTICLE.
 § 66.45 NO RIGHT TO ELECTRONIC RECORDING OR TRANSCRIPT.
   1.  THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT CREATE A RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO REQUIRE A
 CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO BE RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.
   2. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF  A  TRANSCRIPT  OF  AN
 ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
 § 66.50 RELATION   TO  ELECTRONIC  SIGNATURES  IN  GLOBAL  AND  NATIONAL
           COMMERCE ACT.
   THIS ARTICLE MODIFIES, LIMITS, AND SUPERSEDES  THE  ELECTRONIC  SIGNA-
 TURES  IN  GLOBAL  AND  NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7001 ET
 SEQ., BUT DOES NOT MODIFY, LIMIT, OR SUPERSEDE SECTION  101(C)  OF  THAT
 ACT, 15 U.S.C.  SECTION 7001(C), OR AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF ANY
 OF  THE  NOTICES  DESCRIBED  IN  SECTION  103(B)  OF THAT ACT, 15 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7003(B).
   § 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part
 of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction  to
 be  invalid  and  after  exhaustion  of all further judicial review, the
 judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the  remainder  thereof,
 but  shall  be  confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
 graph, section or part of this act directly involved in the  controversy
 in which the judgment shall have been rendered.
   § 4. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
 it shall have become a law; provided, however, that effective immediate-
 ly,  the  addition,  amendment  and/or  repeal of any rule or regulation
 necessary for the implementation of this act on its  effective  date  is
 authorized to be made on or before such date.