Establishes the crime of strangulation in the first degree; disregard of banned employment procedures

2 Co-sponsors

• Jesse Hamilton
• Kevin S. Parker

Title of bill

An act to amend the penal law, in relation to establishing the crime of strangulation in the first degree; disregard of banned employment procedures

Purpose or general idea of bill

Establishes penalties for the use of a chokehold.

Summary of specific provisions

Section 1. Amends the penal law, section 121.11. Provides that a person who uses any procedure known as a chokehold shall be guilty of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation.

Section 2. Amends the penal law by adding a new section, 121.13-a. Establishes the crime of strangulation in the first degree; disregard of banned employment procedures. Provides that a person commits strangulation in the first degree when he or she disregards any procedure banned by his or her employment, commits the crime of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation as defined in section 121.11 and causes serious physical injury or death to another person. Strangulation in the first degree; disregard of banned employment procedures shall be a class B felony.

Section 3. Effective Date

Existing law

Article 121 of the penal law establishes penalties for strangulation and related offenses and creates the crimes of criminal obstruction and strangulation, and strangulation in the first and second degrees.

Justification

In 1993, the New York City Police Department completely banned its officers from using a procedure commonly referred to as a "chokehold." According to the NY Daily News: "Members of the NYPD will NOT use chokeholds," the NYPD patrol guide clearly states: "A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent or hinder breathing to reduce intakes of air" (NYPD patrol guide clearly states members cannot use chokeholds; New York Daily News Barry Paddock Thomas Tracy; Friday, July 18, 2014).

Despite the ban, Bronx resident Anthony Baez died in 1994 as a result of a chokehold. Baez's crime was throwing a football with some friends and the football hit a cop's car. He was unarmed. The officer was ultimately tried by a federal jury and convicted.

On Thursday, July 17, 2014, Eric Garner, who was also unarmed and accused of selling loose cigarettes, was placed in a chokehold by an officer of the NYPD. Despite Mr. Garner's audible pleas that he could not breathe, the officers proceeded to put him in handcuffs. He died later at the hospital. On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, a Staten Island Grand Jury failed to bring an indictment against the officer who placed Mr. Garner in the chokehold, despite the fact that the Medical Examiner had previously ruled his death a homicide.

It is clear that the NYPD's ban on the use of chokeholds is not sufficient to prevent police officers from using this method to restrain individuals whom they are trying to arrest. Between 2009 and 2013, the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiated nine complaints by people who said they had been subjected to a chokehold. Not only has this supposed ban not been enforced, there is evidence that the penalties for using a chokehold have resulted in little more than the loss of vacation time. (New York Times, J David Goodman, July 21, 2014).

It is obvious that the NYPD is either unable or unwilling to enforce its own employee manual. The use of chokeholds has resulted in too many deaths. Criminal sanctions must be established for those who continue to disregard this banned procedure.

Prior legislative history

2014: S.7929 - Referred to Rules/A.10170 - Referred to Codes

Fiscal implications

None to state

Effective date

Immediately