What's happening
This bill prohibits police from using sustained auditory dispersal tools and allows civil actions against agencies that violate this policy.
Why it matters
Sets a clear legal standard. for what constitutes a "sustained auditory dispersal tool," including explicit decibel limits and definitions to help courts and agencies determine violations and ensure public understanding of what is and isn’t allowed.
Creates strong accountability mechanisms. by allowing individuals to sue police agencies for violations, not just for financial damages but also for punitive damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies—potentially deterring future misuse of these devices.
Focuses on public health and safety. by noting that any use of high-decibel, non-verbal sound as a deterrent is presumed unreasonable and by requiring that allowable devices (for verbal communication) comply with health standards and proper training.
Gives courts discretion to consider the severity and frequency of harm. (such as number of incidents, sound levels, and resulting medical issues), meaning agencies with repeated or particularly egregious violations could face harsher penalties and greater public scrutiny.
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
Division of Criminal Justice Services
The division would have to establish a written policy prohibiting police agencies from using sustained auditory dispersal tools.
Police agencies and officers
The prohibition would cover harmful sustained nonverbal sound, while excluding properly administered verbal amplification at ninety decibels or below unless used as a deterrent.
People subjected to prohibited sound tools
Individuals could sue the officer’s employing agency for $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, as well as punitive damages and other relief.
Attorneys representing affected individuals
Courts could award reasonable attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs in cases brought under the bill.
Headline styles
Ban Police Sonic Weapons
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
History
- Referred to codes
- Referred to codes
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
1095
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
January 8, 2025
Introduced by Sens. RAMOS, COMRIE, HOYLMAN-SIGAL, JACKSON, KRUEGER, RIVERA, SALAZAR, SEPULVEDA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to creating a written policy on the use of sustained auditory dispersal tools
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 837 of the executive law is amended by adding a new subdivision 24 to read as follows:
24. (a) Establish a written policy prohibiting police agencies from using sustained auditory dispersal tools.
(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, the term "sustained auditory dispersal tool" shall mean any long range acoustic device, sonic weapon, sonic cannon, or any high powered sound magnifier, using piezoelectric transducer or other technology, to emit sustained tones, beeps, chirps, or any deterrent tone or other non-verbal communication at decibels shown to cause hearing loss or other dangerous effects for a sustained period. Any such tone or non-verbal communication over ninety decibels shall be considered presumptively unreasonable. The term "sustained auditory dispersal tool" shall not include any device designed to magnify information or orders via verbal communication at ninety decibels or below, and properly administered according to health and safety standards, by properly trained personnel, provided, however, that such use of any such device as a deterrent and not as a mode of verbal communication shall cause such device to be a "sustained auditory dispersal tool".
(c) (i) Any individual who has been subjected to a sustained auditory dispersal tool by a law enforcement officer in violation of this section or the written policy of the division of criminal justice services promulgated under this section may institute a civil action against the employing agency of such law enforcement officer for any of the following:
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD03227-01-5
(A) One thousand dollars per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater;
(B) Punitive damages;
(C) Injunctive or declaratory relief; and/or
(D) Any other relief the court deems proper.
(ii) In assessing the amount of punitive damages, the court shall consider:
(A) The number of times the person was unlawfully subjected to a sustained auditory dispersal tool;
(B) The decibel level used;
(C) Medical complications resulting from the use of sustained auditory dispersal tool; and
(D) The persistence of violations by the particular law enforcement agency and law enforcement officer.
(iii) In any action brought under this section, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the executive law, in relation to creating a written policy on the use of sustained auditory dispersal tools
Purpose
Directs the executive to create a written policy for the use of sound cannons and other sustained auditory dispersal tools as deterrents and verbal communication.
Summary of provisions
§ 1. (a) Establishes a written policy
(b) Defines sustained auditory dispersal tool: long range acoustic device, sonic weapon, sonic cannon, or any high powered sound magnifier transducer or other technology, to emit sustained tones, beeps, chirps, or any deterrent tone or other non-verbal communication. Such devices emitting over 90 decibels are considered presumptively unreasonable. Excludes devices that magnify information or orders as a form of verbal communication unless used as a deterrent.
(c) Sets punitive measures for victims to bring a civil action
§ 2. Sets Effective Date
Justification
For decades, protesters have lined the streets of cities and towns saying the names: George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony Mcdade and many more black individuals that have lost their lives due to police violence. The public, acting on their right to assemble peacefully, are forcefully dispersed by police with "non-lethal" weapons.
Since 2014, courts have affirmed the NYPD's use of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), or sound cannons, as excessive force when used for crowd control. LRAD used by NYPD can emit sounds up to 162 decibels. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health states that hear- ing loss can be caused by exposure to sound levels over 85 decibels. Protestor's voices should not be drowned out by dangerous alarm tones used to disperse demonstrations.
Legislative history
2023-24: S4571 (Ramos) Referred to Codes / A2234 (Ilyndman) referred to codes
2021-22: S2760 (Ramos) Referred to Codes / A2374 (Hyndman) referred to codes
2020: S8594 (Ramos) Referred to Rules / A10680 (Hyndman) referred to codes
Fiscal impact
To Be Determined
Effective date
This act shall take effect immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.