A01508 Summary:

BILL NO    A01508A

SAME AS    Same as S 2594-A

SPONSOR    Wright (MS)

COSPNSR    Powell

MLTSPNSR   Brennan, Farrell, Robinson

Amd SS690.30, 690.35, 690.40, 690.45 & 690.50, add S690.60, CP L; add S837-s,
Exec L; amd S212, Judy L

Makes various provisions to the criminal procedure law in relation to the
execution of a warrant of arrest; authorizes the commissioner of the division
of criminal justice services to establish a system to record and monitor the
issuance and execution of search warrants; and authorizes the chief
administrator of the court system to establish educational programs for
judicial personnel on the law of searches, arrests and seizures.

A01508 Actions:

BILL NO    A01508A

01/07/2009 referred to codes
05/05/2009 reported 
05/07/2009 advanced to third reading cal.505
05/19/2009 amended on third reading 1508a
06/10/2009 passed assembly
06/10/2009 delivered to senate
06/11/2009 REFERRED TO RULES
01/06/2010 DIED IN SENATE
01/06/2010 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
01/06/2010 ordered to third reading cal.133

A01508 Votes:

BILL: A01508A DATE: 06/10/2009  MOTION:                       YEA/NAY: 100/045

Abbate  Y  Cahill  Y  Englebr Y  Hooper  Y  Maisel  Y  Powell  Y  Skartad Y
Alessi  Y  Calhoun NO Errigo  NO Hoyt    Y  Markey  Y  Pretlow Y  Spano   Y
Alfano  Y  Camara  Y  Espaill Y  Hyer-Sp Y  Mayerso Y  Quinn   NO Stirpe  Y
Amedore NO Canestr Y  Farrell Y  Jacobs  Y  McDonou NO Rabbitt NO Sweeney Y
Arroyo  ER Carrozz Y  Fields  Y  Jaffee  Y  McEneny Y  Raia    NO Tedisco NO
Aubry   Y  Castro  Y  Finch   NO Jeffrie Y  McKevit ER Ramos   Y  Thiele  NO
Bacalle NO Christe Y  Fitzpat NO John    Y  Meng    ER Reilich NO Titone  Y
Ball    NO Clark   Y  Gabrysz NO Jordan  NO Miller  NO Reilly  Y  Titus   Y
Barclay NO Colton  Y  Galef   Y  Kavanag Y  Millman Y  Rive J  Y  Tobacco NO
Barra   NO Conte   NO Gantt   Y  Kellner Y  Molinar NO Rive N  Y  Towns   Y
Barron  Y  Cook    Y  Gianari Y  Kolb    NO Morelle Y  Rive PM Y  Townsen NO
Benedet Y  Corwin  NO Gibson  Y  Koon    NO Nolan   Y  Robinso Y  Walker  NO
Benjami Y  Crespo  Y  Giglio  NO Lancman Y  Oaks    NO Rosenth Y  Weinste Y
Bing    Y  Crouch  Y  Glick   Y  Latimer Y  O'Donne Y  Russell ER Weisenb Y
Boyland Y  Cusick  Y  Gordon  Y  Lavine  Y  O'Mara  NO Saladin NO Weprin  Y
Boyle   NO Cymbrow Y  Gottfri Y  Lentol  Y  Ortiz   ER Sayward NO Wright  Y
Bradley Y  DelMont NO Gunther NO Lifton  Y  Parment Y  Scarbor Y  Zebrows Y
Brennan Y  DenDekk Y  Hawley  NO Lope PD NO Paulin  Y  Schimel Y  Mr Spkr Y
Brodsky Y  Destito Y  Hayes   NO Lope VJ Y  Peoples Y  Schimmi NO
Brook-K Y  Dinowit Y  Heastie Y  Lupardo Y  Peralta Y  Schroed NO
Burling NO Duprey  NO Hevesi  Y  Magee   Y  Perry   Y  Scozzaf NO
Butler  NO Eddingt Y  Hikind  Y  Magnare Y  Pheffer Y  Seminer NO

A01508 Memo:

BILL NUMBER:A1508A

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation
to the execution of a warrant of arrest; to amend the executive law, in
relation to authorizing the commissioner of the division of criminal
justice services to establish a system to record and monitor the issu-
ance and execution of search warrants; and to amend the judiciary law,
in relation to authorizing the chief administrator to establish educa-
tional programs for judicial personnel on the law of searches, arrests
and seizures

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The bill amends the Criminal Procedure
Law ("CPL"), the Executive Law and Judiciary Law to better protect the
public from possible individual or systemic abuse of so-called
"no-knock" search warrants, while preserving the use of such warrants as
a valuable tool of law enforcement.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1 amends S690.30 of the CPL so
that, in the absence of facts in an application for a warrant and find-
ings by a court supporting the execution of a no-knock warrant at some
other time, no-knock warrants are to be executed between the hours of
9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.

Section 2 amends S690.35 of the CPL to require that the application for
a no-knock warrant be made between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M., unless
circumstances reasonably require that the application be made at some
other time, in which event the application must set forth those circum-
stances.

Section 3 amends S690.35 of the CPL to require the applicant for a
no-knock search warrant to reasonably ascertain whether persons other
than the subject of the warrant will be present when the warrant is to
be executed and to consider reasonable alternatives to executing the
warrant in the presence of such individuals.

Section 4 amends 5690,40 of the CPL to require a court entertaining an
application for a no-knock warrant to place its findings on the record,
either in writing or orally, or in writing upon the application for the
warrant.

Section 5 amends S690.45 of the CPL to provide that a warrant for a
no-knock search reflect the timing requirements in S1 of the bill.

Section 6 amends 5690.50 of the CPL to require that in addition to
filing a return on a search warrant, that the applicant for the warrant
complete a form prepared by the Division of Criminal Justice Services
("DCJS") that includes information on the execution and scope of the
warrant.

Section 7 amends S690.60 of the CPL to require monetary compensation by
the state or municipality employing the officials that execute a
no-knock search warrant for property damaged or destroyed during the

execution of such a warrant unless the owner of the property has been
convicted of a crime involving or relating to the property seized.

Section 8 amends the Executive Law by adding a new S837-r to require
DCJS: 1) to develop a form to be used by law enforcement to facilitate
the reporting requirement established in S6 of the bill; and 2) to
collect, process and analyze the information collected from such forms
every year (which each court that issues a warrant must file on a yearly
basis), the results of which are to be provided to the Attorney General,
the Office of Court Administration, law enforcement agencies and civil-
ian complaint review boards.

Section 9 amends S212 of the Judiciary Law by mandating regular training
of judicial personnel in the substantive law of search and seizures.

Section 10 provides for an effective date of November 1, 2003.

JUSTIFICATION: The tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ms.
Alberta Spruill in New York City on May 16, 2003, during the execution
of a "no-knock" search warrant (an extraordinary form of search warrant
that police officers may execute without announcing their identity or
intentions, pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Law), have served to
highlight the dangers associated with this potent tool. Ms. Spruill, a
57-year-old woman charged with no crime, was found on the floor of her
bedroom, dressed for work, after a stun grenade was detonated in her
apartment. The New York City Chief Medical Examiner ruled her "sudden
death following police raid" a homicide. (New York City Police Depart-
ment Report, dated May 30, 2003 ("NYPD Report"), page 3) Subsequently,
the New York City Police Department conducted an investigation and
issued a report that "found deficiencies in the procedures and practices
of the overall warrant process" (NYPD Report, p. 1) and made several
recommendations, Among those was a recommendation that there be estab-
lished a central repository of search warrants so that all search
warrants could be tracked from the time they were issued until the time
they were executed. This particular suggestion had been consid- ered at
least as far back as January, 2003. (NYPD Press Release No.  2003-048).
In general, the report recommended "clear accountability" (NYPD Report,
p. 21) for the search warrant process.  Everyone acknowledges that
no-knock search warrants are an exceptional tool that, by statute and
constitutional mandate, may only be issued under exceptional circum-
stances. This bill recognizes their value in keeping our streets safe
and protecting our police officers on the front line in the battle
against crime, thus it does not change the standard of proof for their
issuance.  But, as the NYPD Report noted, such warrants "need to be
sharpened in their application, not abandoned" (NYPD Report, p. 1). The
legislation will greatly "sharpen" their application by requiring with
respect to no-knock warrants that: 1) an applicant articulate clearly
the reasons for seeking such a warrant; and 2) a court articulate clear-
ly its reasons for issuing a no-knock warrant.  Moreover, the bill
establishes a data collection process that looks, in part, to apply the
NYPD model on a statewide basis. A state search warrant database will
serve not only to better inform the public and thereby restore confi-

dence in law enforcement, but will enable all to see whether there have
been systemic or individual abuses of search warrants.  While not
barring the issuance of, or application for no-knock warrants at any
time of day or night, the bill establishes slightly different time
parameters for their execution than exist in current law. These new time
frames take into account the more profound invasion of privacy that is
associated with the use of no-knock warrants, so that applications for
their use can be evaluated more clearly.  The bill recognizes that inno-
cent parties should not be deprived of their property through the errors
of others, so it requires municipalities or the state, as may be appro-
priate, to recompense those who are not convicted of crimes but who have
their property damaged during the execution of a no-knock warrant. It
also requires the police to assess the impact of no-knock warrants on
these same people. Finally, the judiciary, the cornerstone of the search
warrant process, must ensure that judges remain highly trained in the
law of search and seizures. The bill mandates regular training of all
judges in this ever changing area.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2007 -- A.775A 2007 -- A.775 Passed Assembly
2005-06 -- A.6696 Passed Assembly 2003-04 -- A.8848A Passed Assembly

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are undetermined costs associated with the
creation of a data collection form and the collation of data collected
from those forms as called for in section 8 of the bill.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth
day after it shall have become a law; provided, however, that effective
immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regu-
lation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effec- tive
date are authorized and directed to be made and completed on or before
such effective date.