Make Virtual Court Appearances Permanent

The State mandates that local governments produce jailed defendants for routine pre-trial appearances. Each day, local corrections departments transport hundreds of prisoners to different courtrooms, often located in different facilities and often across significant distances. Partic- ularly for high-volume and rural jurisdictions, the relative costs of transporting and securing defendants for pre-trial appearances can be significant. Moreover, despite the best efforts of local criminal justice agencies, defendants are not always produced in the correct courtrooms at the correct times. The result is repeated adjournments of routine criminal matters, major delays for courts, prosecutors, defense counsel and defendants, and inflated costs for local governments. More- over, each such transport inherently creates a security threat to the court, court employees and members of the public using the courts, espe- cially where the physical layout of the court requires the transporta- tion of criminal defendants in public hallways.

Recognizing these inefficiencies, CPL article 182 authorized a pilot project by which selected local governments could produce for routine pre-trial court appearances jailed defendants who consent to "appear" in court from jail by secure electronic audio-visual link. The intent was to fully preserve defendants' constitutional and statutory rights while empowering local governments to reduce their considerable expense of repeatedly transporting defendants between jail and courthouse. To date, the program has shown significant promise in New York City, which is allowing defendants held at Rikers Island to "appear" by secure elec- tronic link. The program likewise has promise upstate, where many court- houses and jails are separated by significant distances.

In the years since the program's initial approval in 1993, the Legisla- ture has clearly recognized its promise. Accordingly, numerous counties have been added to the list of jurisdictions authorized to partic- ipate**, and, as is noted above, the authorization - originally required to sunset in 1995 - has been extended eight times. In spite of this volume of authorized venues - now numbering nearly one-half the State's counties, including almost all of the major ones - and so many exten- sions over more than twenty years, this important program can still lapse; and, if no action is taken this session by the Legislature, it will lapse. Should that happen, the potential benefits to local budgets and judicial administration will be undone, and a commonsense way to enhance the security of courts and law-enforcement personnel transport- ing defendants to and from courts will be lost.

Recognizing the continuing promise of significant benefits to the courts, local governments, prosecutors, defense counsel and defendants awaiting trial, we now propose to make this system permanent. Over twen- ty years of experience with video appearances and further advances in secure technology prove the system's merit and justify its permanent continuation. As under present law, trial proceedings (and pre-trial proceedings for defendants who do not consent to "appear" by video link) will continue to be conducted "live" and in person so as to guarantee defendants all the rights to which they are entitled.

These changes would permit continuation of existing pilot programs in the many counties that heretofore have been authorized to host them, and enable many localities to embrace the significant cost-saving opportu- nities promised by implementation of electronic court appearance. More- over, this measure would continue to make possible reduction of serial adjournments in routine criminal matters caused by difficulties in time- ly producing detained defendants in court.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would take effect immediately.

Legislative history

2017: S.5073 - Passed Senate

2015-16 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

OCA 2015-13

*See L. 1995, c. 124, § 1 (three-year extension); L. 1998, c. 605, § 1 (three-year extension); L. 2001, c. 315, § 1 (three-year extension); L. 2004, c. 172, § 1 (two-year extension); L. 2006, c. 34 (three-year extension); L. 2009, c. 56, pt. U, § 23 (two-year extension); L. 2011, c. 57, pt. A, § 21 (two-year extension); L. 2013, c. 55, pt. E, § 20 (two-year extension); L. 2015, c. 55, pt. B, § 20 (two-year extension).

**The following venues were authorized in the original enactment: Bronx, Kings, New York, Oneida, Queens and Westchester. Since that enactment, the following additional counties have been added to this list: Broome (L. 1994, c.522); Chautauqua and Tompkins (L. 1995, c. 124); Cattaraugus (L. 1998, c. 177); Onondaga (L. 1998, c. 430); Albany and Richmond (L. 1998, c. 605); St. Lawrence (L. 1999, c. 426); Frank- lin (L. 1999, c. 430); Clinton, Montgomery and Rensselaer (L. 2000, c.514); Ontario (L. 2001, c. 315); Niagara (L. 2002, c. 57); Erie (L. 2002, c. 62);Warren (L. 2004, c. 167); Essex (L. 2006, c. 470); Orange (L. 2006, c. 532); Suffolk (L. 2007, c. 29); Herkimer (L. 2008, c. 317); and Putnam (L. 2009, c. 332).