Jail Holds Before After-Hours Court

The United States Supreme Court and the New York State Court of Appeals have unequivocally declared that the right to counsel attaches at an accused's arraignment (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Hurrell-Harring v. New York, 15 NY3d 8 (2010); see also CPL 17010(3), 180.20(3)). For decades, however, New York has struggled to meet this critical obligation in many courts, especially in rural counties where law enforcement frequently lacks the ability to detain an accused in a local facility, and qualified attorneys for an immediate arraignment are often unreachable or unavailable.

To their credit, New York's legislative, executive and judicial branches have recognized the critical need to resolve this problem and have begun to make the significant changes necessary to ensure indigent defendants have access to counsel at first appearance. For instance, increased indigent defense funding as part of the Hurrell-Hawing settlement and a similar commitment to increase funding statewide over a five-year period beginning in 2018 are significantly helping to address the problem.

Another critical initiative helping to alleviate the problem was added in 2016, when the Legislature enacted laws authorizing the Chief Admin- istrative Judge, after consultation with critical local stakeholders and with the approval of the Administrative Board of the Courts, to estab- lish county-wide off-hours arraignment parts in jurisdictions outside New York City (L. 2016, c. 492). To date, eleven counties have developed approved plans and are currently operating an off-hours arraignment part. Where established, off-hours arraignment parts have been extremely successful in ensuring defendants are afforded counsel at arraignments.

A defining feature of every county plan thus far has incorporated twice daily arraignments in the off-hours part, thus ensuring that no defend- ant will be held for more than 12 hours before being arraigned. However, because most local law enforcement agencies lack the capability to detain an arrested person in a local lock-up, the plans provide that local law enforcement may bring him or her to the county jail facility to be held until arraignment. Unfortunately, the authority for a county jail to hold an arrestee before a securing order is issued requires specific authorization under the Correction Law (see Correction Law §§ 500-a, 500-c). Thus, each county that wants to establish an off-hours arraignment part, must ask the Legislature to amend the Correction Law to authorize pre-arraignment detention in its county jail facility. This has proved cumbersome and slow as counties must individually draft legislation and submit bills piecemeal to the Legislature for approval.

This measure would address the problem by allowing a county jail facili- ty to accept pre-arraignment prisoners if done in connection with the establishment of an off-hours arraignment part. The measure does not mandate that the sheriff accept pre-arraignment prisoners and will have no impact on those counties that have already secured legislative authority for pre-arraignment detention of arrested individuals. The measure is designed to relieve a county of the need to individually petition the Legislature for pre-arraignment detention authority when done as part of their approved plan for an off-hours arraignment part.

Section one of the measure adds a new subdivision 2-t to section 500-a of the Correction Law authorizing a county jail to be used for pre-arr- aignment detention when the person under arrest is being held for arraignment in the off-hours arraignment part established by the Chief Administrative Judge.

Section two adds a corresponding new subdivision twenty-five to section 500-c of the Correction Law and provides that the obligations of the sheriff to pre-arraignment prisoners are that same as to any other pris- oner committed to the custody of the sheriff.

This measure would take effect immediately.

Legislative history

None.New Proposal