Creates the crimes of criminal interference with a funeral service in the first and second degrees

Summary of provisions

Section One of this bill would add a new section 255 to the military law, to establish a legislative intent for the compelling state interest in protecting the mourners at military funerals, and to require that the Division of Military and Naval Affairs provide and make available an informational guide which details the public protections and protest restrictions concerning the funerals, memorial services, wakes, burials and processions of military personnel.

Section Two of this bill would amend Section 240.70 of the Penal Law to afford the same protections to funerals as are now given to health care services clinics and religious assemblies. Specifically, funeral services for purposes of this section would include any funeral, funeral procession, wake, memorial service, burial or burial plot Accordingly, this section would prohibit disruptive behavior within 500 feet of a funeral service and classifies a first conviction of such as a class A misdemeanor.

Sect.ion Three of this bill would amend Section 240.71 of the Penal Law to establish that a second or subsequent offense of disrupting a funeral service would be a class E felony.

Section Four of this bill would provide for an immediate effective date.

Justification

On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Synder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. __ (2011), Slip Opinion - No.09-751. In such case, the Court found that people who protest at funerals of military personnel, do have constitutionally protected free speech rights, but that states also have a compelling state interest to protect the family and friends of such deceased military personnel during their mourning at such events. Indeed, in the decision, the Court acknowledges a Maryland law, enacted after the case at issue, which establishes time, place and manner restrictions on the protesting of military funerals, and prohibits protests within a specific distance of such events.

Indeed the Synder case specifically references the similarity of establishing such buffer zones for health care services clinics. This

bill would accordingly, amend Section 240.70 and 240.71 of the Penal Law, which presently establish such a buffer zone to protect a health care services clinics and religious assemblies from attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with another person because such person was or is seeking to exercise the right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, to also include funeral services.

As the Synder case points out, there are individuals and groups who seek to use military funerals as a protest vehicle to advance their ideology. The Snyder court has held that as long as the First Amendment remains in force, the right of Americans to express even the most loathsome ideas is constitutionally protected, but can be limited by states, with respect to time, place and manner.

This bill would enact the buffer protection zone enumerated by the court to prevent the protesting of such a military funeral within 500 feet of the funeral, the burial, wake, memorial service, or procession of such deceased military personnel member. In the event a person violates this law by conducting such a protest within the 500 foot buffer protection zone, pursuant to this bill, they would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor on the first offense, and a class E felony on the second or later offense.

Legislative history

This is a new bill.

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Immediate.