Prohibits removal from the judicial diversion program of defendants with opioid addictions, on the basis of participation prescribed drug treatment under the care of a physician

Summary of provisions

Section one amends subdivision 5 and paragraph (a) of subdivision 9 of section 216.05 of the criminal procedure law, which relates to the release conditions of a defendant participating in a judicial diversion program. Subdivision 5 is amended to allow for the inclusion of medically prescribed drug treatments in the set of release conditions agreed upon by the defendant. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 9 is amended to include that under no circumstances shall a defendant who requires treatment for opioid abuse or dependence be deemed to have violated the release conditions on the basis of his or her participation in medically prescribed drug treatments while under the care of an authorized and qualified physician.

Section two provides that this act shall take effect immediately.

Justification

New York State has helped pave the way nationwide for the implantation and utilization of drug treatment courts in the judicial diversion programs. As of August 1, 2014, New York has established 146 drug courts across the state, 90 in criminal court, 35 in family court, 6 in town and village courts and 15 focused exclusively on juveniles. These courts have had roughly 85,415 participants statewide, with roughly 38,185 having graduated from the program. While the statistics are impressive, more needs to be done to ensure that more participants matriculate from the program.

On February 5, 2015, the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, released a statement announcing that drug courts which receive federal funding may no longer prohibit the use of medically assisted treatment. If the courts wish to continue to receive federal funding, they must not only allow the use of such treatments, but also help to ensure participants have access to these medications, specifically methadone and buprenorphine (brand name Suboxone). The Office of National Drug Control Policy further commented that applicants for drug court grants will be required to allow participants access to medically prescribed treatment, and will no longer have the discretion to require participants to taper off these medications as a condition of their participation in the program.

A case study performed by the Harm Reduction Journal found that New York does not have a uniform policy regarding the use of medically prescribed treatment during participation in a judicial drug diversion

program. For example, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens drug treatment courts require participants to wean off methadone in order to continue participation in their programs, while courts in Suffolk, Onondaga and Bronx Counties do not prohibit the use of such treatment in order to participate. Since varying standards exist, it is crucial that the State establish a uniform policy permitting the use of medically prescribed treatment statewide in order to comply with recent federal initiatives.

Further empirical evidence suggests that the use of medically prescribed treatment in drug courts is a beneficial and appropriate way of tackling the opioid epidemic plaguing the nation. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), a national non-profit corporation founded by a group of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and clinical professionals from the first twelve drug courts across the country, has recently reported that defendants should not be excluded, or removed from drug courts for authorized use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments. Some courts allow for the use of such medically prescribed treatment as a "bridge to abstinence," allowing defendants, in conjunction with their authorized medical professional, to taper off use of such treatment in order to remain active in these programs. While this may present itself as a sound treatment option, the World Health Organization has come out strongly in support of continued use of such treatments, stating that clinical research has proven that arbitrary limits on the use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments is disadvantageous to the ultimate goals of judicial drug treatment programs.

Additionally, in 2004, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Court Operations and Planning in New York State, Judy Harris Kluger, established an advisory committee which was charged with producing a recommended practices guide for the state's drug treatment courts. In the issued report, the committee strongly urges drug courts to seriously consider the use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments since scientific research has shown that these medications help to normalize brain function of opioid addicts. The report further encourages the courts to defer to the treatment decisions of authorized medical professionals working closely with the court system. While the legislature has the utmost respect for judicial discretion, it is evident that prohibiting the use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments, or requiring its use serve merely as a "bridge to abstinence" is contrary to established best practices, and hinders the recovery process. This piece of legislation would establish uniformity in New York State's judicial drug diversion programs, while ensuring the continued financial support for such programs by the federal government.

Legislative history

New bill

Fiscal implications

None

Effective date

This act shall take effect immediately.