Relates to the execution of a warrant of arrest and establishes educational programs for judicial personnel on the law of searches, arrests and seizures

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 circumstances.

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 §690.40 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 §690.50 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-s 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 civilian complaint review boards.

Section 9 amends §212 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 180 days after it becomes a law.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

02/28/11 S3606 REFERRED TO CODES 01/04/12 REFERRED TO CODES

01/14/11 A2196 referred to codes 05/17/11 reported 05/19/11 advanced to third reading cal. 369 01/04/12 referred to codes 02/14/12 reported 02/16/12 advamced to third reading cal. 343

2011; A.2196/s.3606 2010: A.1508-A/S.2594-A - Held in Codes 2007 -- A.775A 2007 -- A.775 Passed Assembly 2005-06 -- A.6696 Passed Assembly 2003-04 -- A.8848-A 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 necessary 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.