What's happening
This bill expands rules on admissibility of defendants' statements and requires detailed data collection on recorded interrogations.
Why it matters
Expands what counts as an "involuntary" confession. Statements made after police knowingly lie about evidence can now be considered involuntary, which could reduce the risk of false confessions and wrongful convictions.
Strengthens transparency and accountability in interrogations. Requires law enforcement to report detailed data on how and when interrogations are recorded, making it easier to identify patterns of compliance or abuse.
Aims to improve fairness in the justice system. By collecting and analyzing data on recorded interrogations, the state can better evaluate the impact of recording policies and ensure that suspects' rights are protected during custodial questioning.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Ban False Confession Evidence
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
History
- Referred to codes
- Referred to rules
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
6806
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
October 25, 2019
Introduced by Sen. MYRIE -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to defendants' statement admissibility and recorded interrogations
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 60.45 of the criminal procedure law are amended and a new subdivision 4 is added to read as follows:
1. Evidence of a written or oral confession, admission, or other statement made by a defendant with respect to his or her participation or lack of participation in the offense charged, may not be received in evidence against him or her in a criminal proceeding if such statement was involuntarily made.
2. A confession, admission or other statement is "involuntarily made" by a defendant when it is obtained from him or her:
(a) By any person by the use or threatened use of physical force upon the defendant or another person, or by means of any other improper conduct or undue pressure which impaired the defendant's physical or mental condition to the extent of undermining his or her ability to make a choice whether or not to make a statement; or
(b) By a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity or by a person then acting under his or her direction or in cooperation with him or her:
(i) by means of any promise or statement of fact, which promise or statement undermines the reliability of the defendant's statement, or creates a substantial risk that the defendant might falsely incriminate himself or herself; [or]
(ii) by knowingly communicating false facts about evidence to the defendant; or
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD13886-02-9
S. 6806 2
(iii) in violation of such rights as the defendant may derive from the constitution of this state or of the United States.
4. The division of criminal justice services shall collect and analyze the following data related to the recordation of interrogations pursuant to the requirements of subdivision three of this section, including but not limited to:
(a) The aggregate annual number of recorded interrogations in detention facilities for all categories of criminal charges, including such charges as required by paragraph (a) of subdivision three of this section and any additional recorded interrogations.
(b) The disaggregate data for each case involving a custodial interrogation of a person suspected of committing a crime that occurred in a detention facility, including:
(i) Whether the interrogation was recorded.
(ii) If the interrogation was not recorded, whether there was a showing of good cause pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision three of this section.
(iii) The duration of the interrogation and the circumstances of the recorded interrogation, including:
(1) Whether the recording began: (A) when the suspect entered the interrogation room; (B) when the suspect was read his or her Miranda rights; or (C) after the suspect was read his or her Miranda rights; and
(2) Whether the recording ended: (A) after the interrogation ended; (B) immediately after the suspect confessed; or (C) at another time prior to the end of the interrogation.
(iv) Whether the suspect confessed to the crime during the interrogation.
(v) Whether the interrogation was recorded with video and audio or audio only.
§ 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to defendants' statement admissibility and recorded interrogations
Purpose
To provide increased protections against false confession and/or false incrimination by individuals subject to interrogation, and to provide for the collection of data concerning recorded interrogations.
Summary of provisions
Section 1 Amends subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 60.45 of the criminal procedure law, providing any promise or statement of fact by law enforcement to an individual under interrogation that undermines the reliability of such individual's statement, and increases the likelihood of that individual's false incrimination is designated as an involuntary confession, statement, or admission. In addition, providing any confession produced from such interrogation where there existed a pres- entation of knowingly false information to individuals under interro- gation by law enforcement is designated as an involuntary confession, statement or admission. Adds a new subdivision 4 providing for the collection of recorded interrogation data by the Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Section 2 provides for the effective date
Justification
Our justice system should be based on basic principles of fairness and transparency. When defendants are under interrogation, however, our current law allows law enforcement to use deceptive practices and to do so in unrecorded interactions. While many interactions between law enforcement and the accused may not involve such deception, the conse- quences for instances where it does occur are dire. These practices have led to coerced confessions which can wrongfully imprison innocent citizens or provide the improper basis for additional charges. The abil- ity of the government to deny an individual their liberty is one of its most sobering powers and the exercise of that power should not be based on deception.
In 1989, five teenage men were wrongly convicted of raping a woman in New York City's Central Park. Their guilt was largely based on false confessions coerced by law enforcement. Today, they are widely known as the "Exonerated 5," but it took thirteen years in prison and the DNA evidence of the real perpetrator to overturn their wrongful convictions. Had the law, in 1989, prevented deceptive practices by law enforcement, they may have never been incarcerated.
Unfortunately, the Exonerated 5 are not isolated cases. New York consistently ranks near the top of the country in false convictions. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, from 1989-2015, there were 1600 exonerations, and over that period, New York ranked second only to Texas with 189 exonerations. Of the top ten counties with exonerations, New York accounted for three; Kings County, Bronx County, and New York County had the 5th, 6th, and 7th most exonerations, respec- tively. In 2018 alone, New York tied Texas for the second most false convictions (16) in the United States (there were 151 exonerations nationwide). Out of the 151 exonerations nationwide, 107 included offi- cial misconduct, and 19 included false confessions.
Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that proof should not include evidence tainted by a false confession. Recording interrogations and prohibiting deceptive practices in the process is a step in the right direction that will put New York at the forefront of fairness and transparency in the justice system.
Legislative history
New Bill
Fiscal implications
To be determined.
Effective date
This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become law.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.