Relates 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.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7040
SPONSOR: O'Donnell 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 issuance and execution of search warrants; and to amend the judici-
ary law, in relation to authorizing the chief administrator to establish
educational 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 enforce-
ment.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1 amends § 690.30 of the CPL so that, in the absence of facts in
an application for a warrant and findings 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 § 690.35 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 § 690.35 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 § 690.45 of the CPL to provide that a warrant for a
no-knock search reflect the timing requirements in § 1 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 § 690.60 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 § 837-r to require
DCJS: 1) to develop a form to be used by law enforcement to facilitate
the reporting requirement established in § 6 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 § 212 of the Judiciary Law by mandating regular train-
ing 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 follow-
ing police raid" a homicide. (New York City Police Department 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 established 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 considered 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 circumstances. 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 applica-
tion, 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 seek-
ing such a warrant; and 2) a court articulate clearly 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 confidence in law enforce-
ment, 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 innocent parties should not be
deprived of their property through the errors of others, so it requires
municipalities or the state, as may be appropriate, 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:
2015-2016: A4012 2013-2014: A2935
2011: A.2196
2009: A.1508-A
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 regulation neces-
sary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are
authorized and directed to be made and completed on or before such
effective date.
