BILL NUMBER: S5073          REVISED MEMO 01/19/2018

SPONSOR: LANZA
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend chapter 689 of the laws of 1993 amend-
ing the criminal procedure law relating to electronic court appearance
in certain counties, in relation to the effectiveness thereof

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Chief Administra-
tive Judge on behalf of the Unified Court System.

This measure would amend chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993, which first
authorized a three and one-half year pilot program in the use of elec-
tronic court appearance in selected counties and in New York City, to
make this authorization permanent. Since this first enactment, the pilot
program has been renewed eight times*. At the present time, it is sched-
uled to expire on September 1, 2017.

The State mandates that local governments produce jailed defendants for
routine pre-trial appearances. Each day, local corrections departments
transport hundreds of prisoners to different courtrooms, often located
in different facilities and often across significant distances. Partic-
ularly for high-volume and rural jurisdictions, the relative costs of
transporting and securing defendants for pre-trial appearances can be
              

significant. Moreover, despite the best efforts of local criminal
justice agencies, defendants are not always produced in the correct
courtrooms at the correct times. The result is repeated adjournments of
routine criminal matters, major delays for courts, prosecutors, defense
counsel and defendants, and inflated costs for local governments. More-
over, each such transport inherently creates a security threat to the
court, court employees and members of the public using the courts, espe-
cially where the physical layout of the court requires the transporta-
tion of criminal defendants in public hallways.

Recognizing these inefficiencies, CPL article 182 authorized a pilot
project by which selected local governments could produce for routine
pre-trial court appearances jailed defendants who consent to "appear" in
court from jail by secure electronic audio-visual link. The intent was
to fully preserve defendants' constitutional and statutory rights while
empowering local governments to reduce their considerable expense of
repeatedly transporting defendants between jail and courthouse. To date,
the program has shown significant promise in New York City, which is
allowing defendants held at Rikers Island to "appear" by secure elec-
tronic link. The program likewise has promise upstate, where many court-
houses and jails are separated by significant distances.

In the years since the program's initial approval in 1993, the Legisla-
ture has clearly recognized its promise. Accordingly, numerous counties
have been added to the list of jurisdictions authorized to partic-
ipate**, and, as is noted above, the authorization - originally required
to sunset in 1995 - has been extended eight times. In spite of this
volume of authorized venues - now numbering nearly one-half the State's
counties, including almost all of the major ones - and so many exten-
sions over more than twenty years, this important program can still
lapse; and, if no action is taken this session by the Legislature, it
will lapse. Should that happen, the potential benefits to local budgets
and judicial administration will be undone, and a commonsense way to
enhance the security of courts and law-enforcement personnel transport-
ing defendants to and from courts will be lost.

Recognizing the continuing promise of significant benefits to the
courts, local governments, prosecutors, defense counsel and defendants
awaiting trial, we now propose to make this system permanent. Over twen-
ty years of experience with video appearances and further advances in
secure technology prove the system's merit and justify its permanent
continuation. As under present law, trial proceedings (and pre-trial
proceedings for defendants who do not consent to "appear" by video link)
will continue to be conducted "live" and in person so as to guarantee
defendants all the rights to which they are entitled.

These changes would permit continuation of existing pilot programs in
the many counties that heretofore have been authorized to host them, and
enable many localities to embrace the significant cost-saving opportu-
nities promised by implementation of electronic court appearance. More-
over, this measure would continue to make possible reduction of serial
adjournments in routine criminal matters caused by difficulties in time-
ly producing detained defendants in court.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would take
effect immediately.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2017:  S.5073 - Passed Senate

 
2015-16 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

OCA 2015-13

*See L. 1995, c. 124, § 1 (three-year extension); L. 1998, c. 605, § 1
(three-year extension); L. 2001, c. 315, § 1 (three-year extension); L.
2004, c. 172, § 1 (two-year extension); L. 2006, c. 34 (three-year
extension); L. 2009, c. 56, pt. U, § 23 (two-year extension); L. 2011,
c. 57, pt. A, § 21 (two-year extension); L. 2013, c. 55, pt. E, § 20
(two-year extension); L. 2015, c. 55, pt. B, § 20 (two-year extension).

**The following venues were authorized in the original enactment:
Bronx, Kings, New York, Oneida, Queens and Westchester. Since that
enactment, the following additional counties have been added to this
list: Broome (L. 1994, c.522); Chautauqua and Tompkins (L. 1995, c.
124); Cattaraugus (L. 1998, c.  177); Onondaga (L. 1998, c. 430); Albany
and Richmond (L. 1998, c.  605); St. Lawrence (L. 1999, c. 426); Frank-
lin (L. 1999, c. 430); Clinton, Montgomery and Rensselaer (L. 2000,
c.514); Ontario (L.  2001, c. 315); Niagara (L. 2002, c. 57); Erie (L.
2002, c. 62);Warren (L. 2004, c. 167); Essex (L. 2006, c. 470); Orange
(L. 2006, c. 532); Suffolk (L. 2007, c. 29); Herkimer (L. 2008, c. 317);
and Putnam (L.  2009, c. 332).