MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2020 1:56 P.M.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
THE REVEREND ELIA WILL OFFER A PRAYER.
REVEREND DONNA ELIA: LET US PRAY: HOLY AND
RIGHTEOUS GOD, WE PAUSE TO CALL UPON YOU TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENCE IN TURBULENT TIMES. OH, THAT YOU WOULD TEAR OPEN THE
HEAVENS AND COME DOWN TO HELP US ERADICATE THE SCOURGE OF RACISM IN
OUR LAND. WE GRIEVE THE LOSS OF GEORGE FLOYD, AND DECRY THE WAYS IN
WHICH PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE BEEN DEVALUED, DENIED JUSTICE AND KILLED.
WE GRIEVE THE TRAGIC DAMAGE TO OUR COMMON HUMANITY. DO NOT ALLOW
US TO SET ASIDE OUR COMMITMENT TO DOING THE HARD WORK OF EXAMINING
OUR OWN HEARTS.
THANK YOU FOR EACH LEGISLATOR AND STAFF PERSON, AND
1
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
FOR THE MANY WAYS IN WHICH THIS ASSEMBLY STRIVES TO WORK TOGETHER FOR
THE COMMON GOOD. THANK YOU FOR ALL THEY ACCOMPLISH, AND CONTINUE
TO FILL THEM WITH WISDOM AND COMPASSION AS THEY SEEK TO BUILD A JUST
STATE. WHEN THE TASK SEEMS DAUNTING AND THE RESOURCES STRETCHED THIN,
EMPOWER THEM TO FIND A WAY THROUGH. WHEN THEY ARE WEARY,
STRENGTHEN THEM, AND THANK YOU FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC
SERVICE. FILL THEM ALWAYS WITH COURAGE AND WITH HOPE. POUR OUT YOUR
HEALING POWER UPON ALL, UPON THEIR FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES, OUR STATE,
THE NATION AND THE WORLD. EMPOWER US TO DISMANTLE RACISM AND GIVE
US THE STRENGTH AND TENACITY TO WORK FOR JUSTICE. HEAL AND TRANSFORM
US, O HOLY ONE. AMEN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AMEN.
VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE.
(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY LED VISITORS AND
MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)
A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE
JOURNAL OF SUNDAY, JUNE 7TH.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I WAIVE
THAT WE DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL FOR JUNE THE
7TH AND ASK THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO
ORDERED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
2
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. SPEAKER, AN HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO BE HERE TODAY. THERE
-- WE'RE, QUITE FRANKLY, IN THE MIDDLE OF THREE PANDEMICS ALL AT ONCE,
THEY'RE HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUSLY: THE COVID, ALTHOUGH WE
GRATEFULLY HEAR OUR NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN, WE ARE STILL IN THE MIDST
OF THAT, AS WELL. AS YOU SEE, WE ARE PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCE HERE IN
OUR CHAMBERS. I WANT TO SAY, AND I HATE TO SAY, BUT I THINK OUR
ECONOMY IS HEADED TOWARDS A RECESSION, IF WE'RE NOT ALREADY THERE.
AND WE'RE ALSO SEEING PEOPLE ACROSS THE GLOBE PROTEST BECAUSE OF THE
SORT OF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DEAL WITH IN
CHAMBERS TODAY.
SO, MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO OFFER THIS QUOTE: "ONE OF
THE MOST SINCERE FORMS OF RESPECT IS ACTUALLY LISTENING TO WHAT OTHERS
HAVE TO SAY." MR. SPEAKER, THAT QUOTE IS FROM BRYANT H. MCGILL, HE'S
AN AUTHOR AND AN ACTIVIST, AND I WANT TO THANK OUR OWN KAREN
DECHALUS FOR SHARING THAT WITH ME TODAY.
SO, MR. SPEAKER, WELCOME TO ALL WHO ARE WITHIN OUR
CHAMBERS AND THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY. MEMBERS HAVE
ON THEIR DESK AN A-CALENDAR. COMMITTEES HAVE MET THIS MORNING AND
HAVE PRODUCED AN A-CALENDAR AND "A" CALENDAR. SO, SOMETIMES WHEN
YOU SAY THAT IT SOUNDS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME CALENDAR, BUT
WE'RE NOT. MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESKS A CALENDAR, AND COMMITTEES
HAVE MET TO PRODUCE A [SIC] A-CALENDAR. AT THIS TIME, MR. SPEAKER, I'D
LIKE TO ADVANCE THE A-CALENDAR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON MRS.
3
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PEOPLES-STOKES' MOTION, THE A-CALENDAR IS ADVANCED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. OUR PRINCIPAL WORK FOR TODAY WILL TAKE -- BE TAKEN UP FROM
THE A-CALENDAR, AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHER BILLS FROM THE MAIN CALENDAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND MEMBERS THAT WE'LL BE OPERATING UNDER THE SAME
PROCEDURES AS WE DID TWO WEEKS AGO. JUST TO REMIND MEMBERS ALSO
THAT THOSE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM SHOULD UTILIZE THEIR ZOOM "RAISE YOUR
HAND" FUNCTION WHEN SEEKING TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR A DEBATE OR TO
EXPLAIN YOUR VOTE. AS IN OUR PREVIOUS REMOTE SESSIONS, WHEN WE ARE
ON A FAST ROLL CALL OR A PARTY VOTE, MEMBERS WISHING TO BE AN EXCEPTION
SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONTACT THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES OF THE
MAJORITY LEADER AND/OR THE MINORITY LEADER.
WE'RE GATHERED AGAIN UNDER EXTRAORDINARILY --
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS IS AN AMBITIOUS PACKAGE THAT
THE SPEAKER PUTS FORTH TODAY, ONE WHICH MAY STIR SOME PASSIONS AND
SOME EMOTIONS IN EACH OF US. AS WE DEBATE THESE BILLS, WE MUST
REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE RULES OF THE HOUSE. YOU SHOULD DEBATE THE
BILL AND TALKING TO THE BILL ONLY AND NOT TO THE PERSON WHO IS ASKING YOU
A QUESTION. IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON, YOU
SHOULD SEND IT THROUGH THE SPEAKER, AS OPPOSED TO USING THAT MEMBER'S
NAME. NOW, I REALIZE WE HAVE FALLEN OFF A LITTLE BIT ON THIS, BUT WE
WERE ALL GIVEN A RULES PACKAGE WHEN WE FIRST GOT HERE AND RULE
SECTION 1, C 3 SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD USE THE PROCESS THAT I JUST LAID OUT.
PLEASE DO NOT TALK TO MEMBERS DIRECTLY. PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK TO
ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR POSITION ON THE LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE US.
4
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE WHAT
THEY SAY, BUT, AGAIN, ONE OF THE MOST SINCERE FORMS OF RESPECT, AND THIS
IS AN HONORABLE HOUSE, THE MOST SINCERE FORMS OF RESPECT IS ACTUALLY
LISTENING TO ONE HAS TO SAY AND DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
TO THEM TO THE SPEAKER.
SO, ONCE AGAIN, LET ME JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION, BECAUSE I KNOW FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE COOPERATIVE. AND I
ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PATIENT AS WE GO THROUGH
THESE THINGS, NOT JUST FROM THE MEMBERS ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE, BUT
I'M ASKING THIS OF THE MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, AS WELL.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO
PROCEED WITH CONSIDERING IMPORTANT BUSINESS BEFORE US. WE'RE GOING
TO BE GOING TO THAT A-CALENDAR THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. WE'RE
GOING TO START AT RULES REPORT NO. 62, IT'S BY OUR MEMBER MOSLEY;
FOLLOWED BY RULES REPORT NO. 65 BY MEMBER PERRY; THEN WE'RE GOING
TO GO TO RULES REPORT NO. 66 BY MR. LENTOL; THEN WE'LL END UP ON THIS
A-CALENDAR BY RULES REPORT FROM MS. RICHARDSON, IN THAT ORDER, MR.
SPEAKER, AND THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU SO VERY
MUCH, MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES. AND WE WILL START.
THE CLERK WILL READ, RULES REPORT NO. 62.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06144-B, RULES
REPORT NO. 62, MOSLEY, HEASTIE, REYES, BLAKE, OTIS, CARROLL, L.
ROSENTHAL, PICHARDO, EPSTEIN, HUNTER, NIOU, SIMON, RICHARDSON,
CRESPO, RODRIGUEZ, LIFTON, JOYNER, SIMOTAS, BICHOTTE, GLICK, DAVILA,
5
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
VANEL, ORTIZ, PERRY, KIM. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW, IN RELATION
TO ESTABLISHING THE CRIME OF AGGRAVATED STRANGULATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY, A [SIC]
EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED, PLEASE.
MR. MOSLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS ACT IS
DESIGNATED THE SO-CLAIMED "ERIC GARNER ANTI-CHOKEHOLD ACT." THIS
BILL AMENDS THE PENAL LAW BY ADDING A NEW SECTION, 121.13,
SUBSECTION A. THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT A POLICE OR PEACE OFFICER WHO
COMMITS THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING OR BLOOD CIRCULATION IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 121.11 OF THE PENAL LAW, OR USES A CHOKEHOLD AS
DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH B OF SUBSECTION 1 OF SECTION 837-T OF THE
EXECUTIVE LAW, OR ANY SIMILAR RESTRAINT, OR THEREBY CAUSES SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER PERSON WILL BE GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED
STRANGULATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY, SIR, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MR. MOSLEY: YES, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. MOSLEY. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BACKGROUND ON
THIS. UNDER FIRST, OF COURSE, I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT WHAT WE
WITNESSED LAST WEEK IN MINNEAPOLIS IS -- IS CERTAINLY UNJUSTIFIED AND --
6
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE OFFICER THAT WAS INVOLVED, AS WELL AS SOME
OF THE OTHER OFFICERS, HAVE BEEN CHARGED CRIMINALLY. IF THAT SAME EVENT
OCCURRED IN NEW YORK STATE, AM I CORRECT THAT AN OFFICER WHO
IMPROPERLY SUFFOCATED A DEFENDANT WOULD BE FACING A MANSLAUGHTER
CHARGE UNDER CURRENT LAW?
MR. MOSLEY: YES, SIR.
MR. GOODELL: AND THAT MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE
WOULD BE A CLASS C FELONY, CORRECT?
MR. MOSLEY: YES, A CLASS C SERIOUS FELONY, YES.
MR. GOODELL: SO UNDER CURRENT LAW, AN OFFICER
WHO IMPROPERLY APPLIES THE CHOKEHOLD OR OTHERWISE STRANGLES
SOMEBODY WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, IMPROPERLY, WOULD BE FACING A CLASS C
FELONY. SO, THIS LAW DOESN'T CHANGE THAT AS IT RELATES TO CAUSING THE
DEATH OF SOMEBODY, IMPROPERLY USING A CHOKEHOLD, CORRECT?
MR. MOSLEY: YEAH; SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, YES.
MR. GOODELL: THE DIFFERENCE, THOUGH, IS THAT IF
THERE WAS NO INTENT TO CAUSE THE DEATH, AND NO WEAPON, RIGHT NOW
UNDER CURRENT LAW CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY WOULD NOT BE A CLASS C
FELONY, CORRECT?
MR. MOSLEY: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: AND THAT WOULD BE A CLASS E OR...
MR. MOSLEY: IT WOULD JUST BE SUCH A DANGER
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) AND IT WOULD BE SO DESIGNATED AS THAT.
MR. GOODELL: SO, THE CONCERN THAT'S BEEN RAISED
BY SOME OBSERVERS IS THAT WE TREAT THE STRANGULATION DEATH THE SAME AS
7
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
WE TREAT AN INJURY CAUSED BY A CHOKEHOLD. WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO
HAVE AN INJURY CAUSED BY A CHOKEHOLD A LOWER CRIMINAL CLASSIFICATION
THAN THE DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT? I MEAN, NORMALLY WE TREAT DEATH A LOT
MORE SERIOUS THAN WE TREAT INJURY.
MR. MOSLEY: WELL, IT'S ALREADY A C CLASSIFICATION
FOR -- FOR CIVILIANS, AND WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS THAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS
WE WANT TO TRY TO BRING PARITY TO THIS PENAL LAW, REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE A
CIVILIAN OR IF YOU'RE ONE WHO'S BEEN DEPUTIZED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENT HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE A LEVEL OF FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY AS THE LAW IS APPLIED TO ALL
CITIZENS OF OUR -- OF OUR GREAT STATE.
MR. GOODELL: I -- AND I APPRECIATE THAT ANALYSIS.
MY QUESTION, THOUGH, REALLY IS, WHY DO WE TREAT AN IMPROPER
CHOKEHOLD THAT CAUSES INJURY WITH THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AS A
CHOKEHOLD THAT CAUSES DEATH? WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO ENCOURAGE
PEOPLE TO TAKE A LESS VIOLENT ROLE, OF COURSE, WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL
ASPIRE TO, IF INJURY WERE A CLASS, YOU KNOW, D, FOR EXAMPLE, AND DEATH
WOULD BE A CLASS C?
MR. MOSLEY: WELL, AS IS ALREADY STIPULATED IN THE
PENAL LAW UNDER 1 -- SECTION 121.13, STRANGULATION IN THE FIRST DEGREE
IS THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD IN TERMS OF BEING A PHYSICAL OR CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING OR BLOOD CIRCULATION AS DEFINED IN -- IN THIS
SECTION AND, THEREBY, CAUSES SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUCH OTHER
PERSONS, AND IT GOES TO SAY STRANGULATION IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS A CLASS
C FELONY. SO, THAT'S ALREADY STIPULATED.
8
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. GOODELL: NOW, IN MANY OF OUR OTHER
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROVISIONS -- OR PENAL LAW PROVISIONS, PARTICULARLY
ON ASSAULTS, THEY ALWAYS START OUT WITH THE PHRASE, "WITH THE INTENT TO
CAUSE INJURY." BUT I NOTE THAT THIS SECTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE
ANY INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. MOSLEY: NO, SOMETIMES THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS
RECKLESS, SOMETIMES THEY'RE CLASSIFIED WITH CRIMINAL INTENT, SOMETIMES
-- THAT'S INCONSISTENT, BUT IT'S CLEARLY SO STATED IN THE PENAL LAWS, AS YOU
KNOW.
MR. GOODELL: SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU AWARE
OF ANY OTHER CLASS C FELONY INVOLVING AN ASSAULT THAT WOULD NOT ALSO
REQUIRE AN INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY, OR DEATH?
MR. MOSLEY: WELL, THIS APPLICATION IS -- WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A VERY DANGEROUS MANEUVER, VERY SERIOUS AND DANGEROUS
ACTIVITY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO STIPULATE IN THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION ITSELF.
MR. GOODELL: BUT, CERTAINLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF OTHER TECHNIQUES USED BY THE POLICE DEPENDING ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF
THE SITUATION, RIGHT, INCLUDING ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE. BUT IF THEY
USE THEIR SERVICE REVOLVER IN SELF-DEFENSE OR UNDER THE ENUMERATED
PROVISIONS, IF IT'S IMPROPER, IT STILL REQUIRES INTENT, CORRECT? AND WE
WOULD ALL AGREE A SERVICE REVOLVER'S -- IS PROBABLY EVEN MORE
DANGEROUS THAN A CHOKEHOLD.
MR. MOSLEY: CORRECT. BUT, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT
9
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
TRYING TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. IT COULD -- THE
INTENT COULD BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO
US, IT COULD BE BASED UPON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ACTIVITY THAT'S BEING
PERPETRATED BY THE OFFICER. SO, THERE'S A LOT OF MITIGATING FACTORS THAT
WE CAN DETERMINE IN AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE INTENT.
MR. GOODELL: LOOKING AT THE PENAL LAW, SECTION
35.30, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE
IN MAKING AN ARREST, AM I CORRECT THAT ALL OF THOSE DEFENSES WOULD STILL
APPLY IN THIS CONTEXT? IN OTHER WORDS, AN OFFICER WOULD NOT BE GUILTY
OF A CLASS C FELONY FOR USING A CHOKEHOLD IF THAT WAS APPLIED PROPERLY
AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE?
MR. MOSLEY: YES. WELL, YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW,
CLEAR EXAMPLE, THAT IS THE STRANGULATION OF ERIC GARNER IN 2014, JULY
2014. THAT'S A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU JUST STIPULATED IN YOUR -- IN
YOUR QUESTION, AND TALKED ABOUT EXCESSIVE FORCE BEYOND A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION FOR SOMEONE WHO IS SELLING LOOSE CIGARETTES AND STANDING
IDLE WHILE NOT COMMITTING ANY OFFENSE, WHETHER IT WAS A MENACING
OFFENSE OR -- OR AN INTIMIDATION OFFENSE, OR THAT OF PHYSICAL ASSAULT ON
ANOTHER OFFICER OR CITIZEN. SO, I THINK WHAT THIS BILL SPEAKS TO IN LARGE
PART IS INCIDENTS OF THIS NATURE.
MR. GOODELL: SO, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THEN, UNDER
PENAL LAW 35.30, THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN
ARREST OR PREVENTING AN ESCAPE, IF, AND -- AND THAT INCLUDES DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE, IF THE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS A
FELONY: KIDNAPPING, ARSON, ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE, BURGLARY AND
10
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE, OR WAS THREATENING THE IMMINENT USE OF
DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST THE OFFICER HIMSELF, RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE
ALL OF THE -- OR SOME OF THE ENUMERATED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE USE OF
DEADLY FORCE IN EFFECTUATING AN ARREST. ALL OF THOSE WOULD STILL
CONTINUE TO APPLY --
MR. MOSLEY: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: -- IN THIS SITUATION. SO -- SO, WE'RE
CLEAR HERE THAT THIS STATUTE WOULD ONLY APPLY IN THE IMPROPER,
UNJUSTIFIED USE OF A CHOKEHOLD THAT CAUSES SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR
DEATH.
MR. MOSLEY: I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST NEVER AVAILABLE TO
USE THE STANDARD THAT YOU'RE TALKING, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE. BUT, THERE'S VERY
NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE.
MR. GOODELL: AND THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY?
MR. MOSLEY: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
MOSLEY.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUE. I THOUGHT THEY WERE VERY HELPFUL
EXPLAINING WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CONTEXT. I ESPECIALLY
APPRECIATED HIS COMMENTS THAT ALL OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR USE OF
PHYSICAL FORCE WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY. AND WHAT THIS REALLY DOES IS
11
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
INCREASES THE SERIOUSNESS IF A CHOKEHOLD, WHICH IS VERY DANGEROUS,
RESULTS IN THE DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY OF A DEFENDANT. AND I THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THAT THIS IS
NOT PUTTING THEM ON A RISK OF BEING SECOND-GUESSED WHEN THEIR LIFE IS
IN DANGER AND THEY'RE USING THIS TECHNIQUE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN LIFE, OR
TO STOP A KIDNAPPING, OR A SERIOUS RAPE OR OTHER CRIME.
AND WE ALL RECOGNIZE HERE THAT WE'RE WALKING A FINE
LINE. I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR THE INCREDIBLE WORK DONE BY OUR OFFICERS
ACROSS THE STATE. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THEM ARE VERY, VERY
CONSCIENTIOUS AND VERY CAREFUL, BUT THEY'RE ALSO DEALING WITH AN
EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE MANY TIMES THEY'RE DEALING
WITH PEOPLE WHO, TO BE BLUNT, ARE NOT COURTEOUS, KIND, CHEERFUL,
OBEDIENT, OR ANY OF THE OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF A BOY SCOUT. OUR
OFFICERS OFTEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY, VERY UPSET IN THE
MIDDLE OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FOR -- FOR EXAMPLE, OR ARE COMMITTING A
VERY, VERY SERIOUS CRIME, LIKE RAPE OR ASSAULT OR KIDNAPPING, AND THEY
MOST DESPERATELY DO NOT WANT TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BECAUSE THEY
KNOW THAT THEY MAY BE FACING YEARS IN PRISON. AND WE'RE DEALING WITH
PEOPLE ON THE STREETS ACROSS OUR STATE WHO ARE SOMETIMES NOT ON THEIR
BEST BEHAVIOR. SOMETIMES THEY'RE A LOT BIGGER THAN ANY OF US.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE ON DRUGS. MOST TIMES THEY'RE VERY UPSET AND MOST
ASSUREDLY DO NOT WANT TO BE ARRESTED.
SO, WE'RE TRYING TO WALK THAT BALANCE OF SUPPORTING
OUR OFFICERS, RECOGNIZING THE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT JOB THEY HAVE WHILE,
AT THE SAME TIME, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN TECHNIQUES THAT
12
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, AND I THINK THAT'S THE -- THE BALANCE THAT THIS
BILL SEEKS TO ACHIEVE. I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL, BUT I WOULD NOTE
THAT I AM CONCERNED THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENT PROVISION IN HERE,
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE INJURY OF A DEFENDANT
IS THE SAME AS THE DEATH OF A DEFENDANT, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE
REVISIT THAT, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FROM A BROADER PUBLIC
POLICY PERSPECTIVE IF WE HAD A LOWER CLASSIFICATION IF THE DEFENDANT IS
INJURED THAN IF THE DEFENDANT IS KILLED, BECAUSE WE ALWAYS VALUE LIFE
VERY HIGHLY.
SO, AGAIN, THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE; I APPRECIATE
THAT EXPLANATION. AND THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. CAHILL.
MR. CAHILL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND THANK
YOU EVERYONE FOR CARRYING ON THIS TRADITION IN THESE VERY DIFFICULT
TIMES, AND ESPECIALLY FOR GATHERING TODAY FOR THIS IMPORTANT AGENDA THAT
WE'LL BE DEALING WITH. I RISE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I KNOW THE TIME FOR INTRODUCTIONS ON THIS FLOOR
HAS PASSED, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO AT THE BEGINNING OF SESSION, AND
THAT WE'RE ON TO THE IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF DEBATING AND VOTING ON BILLS.
STILL, I WISH I COULD STAND HERE TODAY AND INTRODUCE TO YOU AND THE
CHAMBER A 54-YEAR-OLD MAN. I WOULD EXTOLL HIS MANY VIRTUES. I WOULD
TALK ABOUT ALL THAT HE'S GIVEN BACK TO HIS COMMUNITY OF ELLENVILLE,
WHERE MR. BRIAN MILLER NOW REPRESENTS, AND I DID FOR A DECADE. I
13
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
WOULD TELL YOU OF HIS CIVIC ACTIVISM, FOLLOWING THE FOOTSTEPS OF HIS
ELOQUENT AND SOFT-SPOKEN MOTHER, MAUDE.
I THINK I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU THAT HE WAS A GOOD
FAMILY MAN, THAT HE RAISED HIS CHILDREN IN THE SMALL TOWN OF ELLENVILLE,
THAT HE GAVE HIS MOTHER BEAUTIFUL GRANDCHILDREN WHO PARTICIPATED IN
THE BAND AT ELLENVILLE HIGH SCHOOL, AND SCHOOL SPORTS. THAT MAYBE HE
GOT INVOLVED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE SCHOOL BOARD, BUT SURELY I
WOULD BE HERE TO TELL YOU THAT HE STOOD UP FOR INJUSTICE AND
DISCRIMINATION, AND TO PROMOTE HARMONY IN HIS COMMUNITY. I KNOW I
WOULD TELL YOU THAT HE WAS GOOD-NATURED, WELL-LIKED AND FULL OF ENERGY.
I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, MR. SPEAKER, BUT I CANNOT,
BECAUSE THIS YOUNG MAN, JIMMY LEE BRUCE, NEVER GOT TO SEE HIS 20'S,
HIS 30'S, HIS 40'S OR HIS 50'S. HE NEVER GOT TO SEE ANYTHING AFTER A
FATEFUL NIGHT THAT STARTED OUT ALL IN FUN. IN DECEMBER OF 1986,
20-YEAR-OLD JIMMY LEE BRUCE WAS TAKING A BREAK FROM HIS STUDIES AT
THE ADIRONDACK JUNIOR COLLEGE AND DECIDED TO GO TO THE MOVIES WITH
SOME FRIENDS. THEY WENT TO SEE THE EDDIE MURPHY CLASSIC, GOLDEN
CHILD. THE GROUP, HIS SMALL GROUP, WAS LAUGHING. THEY WERE ROWDY,
PROBABLY MORE ROWDY THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. THE YOUNG MAN --
THIS GROUP OF YOUNG MEN WERE APPROACHED BY SECURITY FROM THE THEATER
AND ASKED TO QUIET DOWN. AND FOR A COUPLE OF MOMENTS, THEY DID. BUT
THEN, IT CYCLED UP AGAIN AND THEY STARTED TO WHOOP IT UP SOME MORE.
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SECOND ENCOUNTER, THE GROUP
WAS EJECTED FROM THE THEATER. SOME KIND OF CONFRONTATION ENSUED IN
THE PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE SECURITY GUARDS AND THE YOUNG MEN, AND
14
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
WITHIN MOMENTS, JIMMY LEE BRUCE WAS IN A CHOKEHOLD FIGHTING FOR HIS
LIFE. BEFORE THE NIGHT WAS OVER, THIS PROMISING 20-YEAR-OLD COLLEGE
STUDENT WAS DEAD. IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED, THE -- THE SECURITY GUARDS,
WHO WERE OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICERS, WERE PLACED ON PAID ADMINISTRATIVE
LEAVE. THEY KEPT THEIR JOBS AS SECURITY OFFICERS AT THE MOVIE THEATER.
JIMMY LEE BRUCE DID NOT GRADUATE FROM ADIRONDACK
JUNIOR COLLEGE. HE DID NOT GET TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS THAT YEAR OR ANY
YEAR. HE DID NOT GET TO RAISE HIS FAMILY AND GIVE HIS MOTHER BEAUTIFUL
GRANDCHILDREN. HE DID NOT GET TO BE A PILLAR OF HIS COMMUNITY OR STAND
SIDE BY SIDE FOR THREE DECADES WITH HIS MOM TO FIGHT AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION AND INJUSTICE. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HIS MOM DID FOR
THE NEXT THREE-AND-A-HALF DECADES. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AND EVER
SINCE, MAUDE BRUCE STOOD WITH PEOPLE ALL OVER THE HUDSON VALLEY AND
CATSKILLS TO MAKE SURE THAT NO MOTHER HAD TO SUFFER THE LOSS THAT SHE
DID. SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE PRACTICE KNOWN AND
THEORETICALLY BANNED AS A TOOL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT TIME AND TIME
AGAIN SINCE THEN, SHE HAD TO EXPERIENCE THAT DREADFUL NIGHT OVER AND
OVER AGAIN AS YOUNG BLACK MEN AND SOME WOMEN ACROSS THIS COUNTRY
AND EVEN HERE IN NEW YORK WERE SUBJECTED TO THIS BRUTAL FORM OF
ENFORCEMENT, THIS UNACCEPTABLE ACT OF VIOLENCE.
MR. SPEAKER, TODAY WE TAKE THE FIRST FINAL STEP IN
MAKING SURE THAT JIMMY LEE BRUCE DID NOT DIE IN VAIN, THAT THE
CRUSADE OF MAUDE BRUCE, WHO THOUGH SHE NEVER RAISED HER VOICE ONCE
IN THOSE 33 YEARS, WAS ALWAYS THE CLEAREST AND THE LOUDEST. TODAY, I
CANNOT STAND HERE AND INTRODUCE JIMMY LEE BRUCE TO YOU, BUT I CAN
15
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SAY HIS NAME. I KNOW MAUDE IS LISTENING IN, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OF
YOU, MY COLLEAGUES, THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE AND PEOPLE ALL OVER THIS
COUNTRY, I EXTEND MY PERSONAL THANKS TO HER, AND I THINK YOUR THANKS,
AS WELL. AND, MR. SPEAKER, I THANK YOU AND URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. CARROLL.
MR. CARROLL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. NINETEEN
HUNDRED YEARS AGO, THE ROMAN POET JUVENAL WROTE, WHO WATCHES THE
WATCHERS, MAKING US REMEMBER THAT THOSE WHO WERE THERE TO GUARD THE
PEOPLE MUST BE GUARDED THEMSELVES. AND THEY'RE GUARDED BY CIVILIANS,
BY OUR LEGISLATURE, BY OUR COURTS, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE
CHARGED WITH GUARDING US, WHO BREAK THE LAWS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED
TO UPHOLD. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. AND EVEN THOUGH IN THE
POLICE MANUAL OF THE NYPD IT BANS CHOKEHOLDS, THEY STILL HAPPEN
TODAY. AND, OF COURSE, LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO, WE ALL WATCHED
GEORGE FLOYD DIE AS A POLICE OFFICER CHOKED HIM TO DEATH.
WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT TODAY IS A BRIGHT LINE, AT
LEAST IN NEW YORK, THAT THIS HAPPENS NEVER AGAIN. THAT WE MAKE SURE
THAT WE NEVER HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN ABOUT POLICE
OFFICERS AND THOSE BEING POLICED BEING KILLED IN THEIR CUSTODY BECAUSE
INDISCRIMINATE VIOLENCE IS DONE UPON THEM. I THANK THE SPONSOR,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MOSLEY FOR HIS DEDICATED WORK ON THIS SUBJECT AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
16
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. LAVINE.
MR. LAVINE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND
PERHAPS TOO MANY YEARS OF PRACTICING CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAW IN THE STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS GIVES ME A -- A LITTLE MORE OF A UNIQUE VANTAGE
POINT WHEN IT COMES TO ANALYZING SOME OF THESE CRIMINAL LAW STATUTES.
AND I JUST WANT TO CORRECT ONE MISAPPREHENSION THAT MAY FLOW FROM
SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS BILL THAT TOOK PLACE A LITTLE EARLIER. AND
I -- I'M CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE LISTENING MIGHT THINK THERE IS NO
ELEMENT WHATSOEVER OF INTENT IN THIS PROPOSED STATUTE, BUT THAT IS NOT
THE CASE. AND IT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE THE EXPRESSED LANGUAGE OF THIS
PROPOSED STATUTE INVOLVING AGGRAVATED STRANGULATION IS THAT SOMEONE
WOULD BE GUILTY OF THIS WHEN BEING A POLICE OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN THE
LAW, OR A PEACE OFFICER, HE OR SHE COMMITS THE CRIME OF CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING OR BLOOD CIRCULATION, WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE
LAW AT SECTION 121.11 OF OUR PENAL LAW.
AND SO, SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW CRIME
OF AGGRAVATED STRANGULATION IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING OR BLOOD CIRCULATION AS DEFINED IN
121.11 MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE IS AN INTENT
ELEMENT AND THAT ELEMENT IS CLEAR, AND THIS IS THE LANGUAGE OF 121.11:
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING OR BLOOD
CIRCULATION WHEN, WITH INTENT TO IMPEDE THE NORMAL BREATHING OR
CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD OR ANOTHER.
SO, INTENT REMAINS AN ELEMENT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE
17
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SHOULD DRAW THE CONCLUSION FROM ANY OF OUR CONVERSATIONS HERE TODAY
DESCRIBING THIS BILL THAT INTENT HAS BEEN ERADICATED OR DONE AWAY WITH
ENTIRELY. SO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT IN TERMS OF A
CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE STATE OF THE LAW IS. AND WHEN A
JUDGE CHARGES OR INSTRUCTS A JURY WITH RESPECT TO THIS NEW CRIME, AND
HOPEFULLY THAT NEVER, EVER, EVER HAS TO HAPPEN IN NEW YORK STATE OR
ELSEWHERE, ELEMENT WILL REMAIN -- INTENT WILL REMAIN AN ELEMENT WHICH
MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON
THIS PARTICULAR BILL. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.
LAVINE.
MR. VANEL.
MR. VANEL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR SPONSORING THIS BILL.
ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, THE WORLD WITNESSED THE
HORRIFIC CRIME OF WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS IN MINNEAPOLIS DID BY HAVING
A KNEE TO THE NECK OF GEORGE FLOYD FOR NEARLY NINE MINUTES. NINE
MINUTES. AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT, IT WAS BAFFLING. AND I SAID, YOU
KNOW, THAT HAPPENED ALL THE WAY IN MINNESOTA, BUT THE NAMESAKE OF
THIS BILL IS ERIC GARNER, WHICH HAPPENED RIGHT HERE IN NEW YORK -- IN
NEW YORK CITY. BROTHER CAHILL MENTIONED SOMEBODY FROM HIS DISTRICT
WHERE IT HAPPENED.
WE HAVE TO LET FOLKS KNOW THAT WE SEE YOU, AND WE
SEE, WE SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND
18
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THAT WE'RE NOT ANSWERING THE POLICE. MANY OF OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS ARE POLICE OFFICERS. SOME OF MY BROTHERS ARE POLICE OFFICERS.
MY ASSEMBLYMEMBERS, PHIL RAMOS WAS A FORMER POLICE OFFICER. WE
WANT GOOD POLICING, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE POLICE RESPECT HUMANITY. WE WANT TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
POLICE RESPECT US; ME, AS A BLACK MAN. WHAT DID YOU LOOK AT? WHAT
DID YOU FEEL WHEN YOU SAW THAT HAPPEN TO GEORGE FLOYD? DID YOU SEE
YOUR SON? DID YOU SEE YOUR BROTHER? DID YOU SEE YOUR HUSBAND? DID
YOU SEE A MAN?
THIS BILL INCREASES THE PENALTY FOR STRANGULATION,
WHICH IS ALREADY A CRIME, WHICH IS ALREADY OUTLAWED. NO MAN,
WOMAN, CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT, SHOULD HAVE TO
EXPERIENCE A STRANGULATION BY THE HANDS OF PEOPLE THAT WERE SWORN TO
PROTECT AND SERVE. AGAIN, THE SPONSOR WAS BRAVE TO PUT OUT THIS BILL, TO
STAND IN FACE OF OPPOSITION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAND TO
PROTECT NOT JUST A GROUP OF PEOPLE, BUT ALL FOLKS FROM THIS TYPE OF
UNLAWFUL CRIMES. AND I WILL VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT NO. 62. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL. ANY MEMBER
WISHING TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE
MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
19
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. MOSLEY TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. MOSLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND THANK
YOU FOR THIS PLATFORM AND OPPORTUNITY. I WANT TO THANK OUR MAJORITY
LEADER, AND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES. I WANT TO THANK
MEMBERS OF THE CAUCUS, MEMBERS OF THE HISPANIC TASK FORCE AND THE
ASIAN CAUCUS. AND I WANTED TO THANK ALL OF THE YOUNG ADVOCATES WHO
MADE ALL OF THEIR VOICES HEARD THROUGHOUT NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
STATE AND THROUGHOUT THIS NATION, AND THROUGHOUT OUR GLOBAL
COMMUNITY. YOU TOOK THIS MOMENT AND YOU PROPELLED IT TO A
MOVEMENT, A MOVEMENT WHERE YOU MADE THE SACRIFICE OF YOUR OWN
HEALTH AS WE DEAL WITH THIS GLOBAL HEALTH CARE PANDEMIC. BUT YOU ALSO
TOOK A STANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NO LONGER WITH US, AS WELL AS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. AND EVEN IN THE MIDST OF WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW,
YOU RISKED YOUR OWN HEALTH THROUGH YOUR COLLECTIVE VOICES AND YOU
MADE SURE THAT THE WORLD HAD TO KNOW THAT BLACK LIVES MATTERS.
I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE. I
CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE, AND,
MAMA, I CANNOT BREATHE. ON THAT SUMMER DAY ON JULY 17TH OF 2014,
ERIC GARNER SAID HIS LAST WORDS ON THIS EARTH. A SON, A FATHER, A
GRANDFATHER, A BROTHER, UNCLE, A FRIEND WE LOST TO THE WORLD. AND
BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE TWO INDIVIDUALS, TWO
UNSUNG HEROES, BECAUSE IF NOT FOR THEM AND THEIR BRAVE ACTS, I DON'T
THINK WE WOULD BE HERE. TO RAMSEY ORTA, THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO HAD
VIDEOTAPED -- VIDEORECORDED A MEMBER OF THE NYPD WHO LITERALLY
CHOKED THE LIFE OUT OF ERIC GARNER. THESE UNSUNG HEROES --
20
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY.
MR. MOSLEY: -- WHO WILL PAY THE ULTIMATE
SACRIFICE. AND TO DARNELLA FRAZIER --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY, YOU ARE
EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, YOU'RE AWARE OF IT --
MR. MOSLEY: YES, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PLEASE CLOSE.
MR. MOSLEY: -- A 17-YEAR-OLD WHO TOOK THE TIME
TO VIDEOTAPE GEORGE FLOYD ON THE STREETS OF MINNEAPOLIS JUST A FEW --
TWO WEEKS AGO. I ADD MY CONDOLENCES TO ALL OF THOSE WHO LOST A LIFE
DURING THIS PANDEMIC. BUT AS YOU -- (MIC TURNED OFF).
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MS. WALKER TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT TO SPEAK ON
HOW AMAZINGLY PROUD I AM OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER MOSLEY FOR HAVING
THE FORESIGHT TO BRING FORTH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
AND WE'VE HEARD THE TERMS "I CAN'T BREATHE"
REVERBERATE THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR SYSTEMS. BUT THERE IS
ANOTHER UNSUNG HERO THAT I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UPLIFT TODAY,
AND THAT'S ARTHUR MILLER. AND IN THE '70S, ARTHUR MILLER WAS KILLED BY
A CHOKEHOLD BY THE NYPD. AFTER THAT KILLING, IN LOS ANGELES, THE LOS
ANGELES PD OUTLAWED AND BANNED THE CHOKEHOLD; IN FACT, NEW YORK
CITY BANNED THE USE OF THE CHOKEHOLD. AND WE'VE ALWAYS CALLED OUT
FOR THERE TO BE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THE USAGE OF WHERE SOMEONE
21
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
LOSES THEIR LIFE. AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THEY
DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BRING THE PROSECUTIONS THAT
WOULD EFFECT THE CHANGE THAT WE ALL SEEK.
BUT TODAY, IN THIS HISTORY-MAKING MOMENT, THE TOOLS
ARE READY, THEY ARE AVAILABLE, THEY ARE AT YOUR SERVICE. AND WE HOPE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO CRY OUT ANY LONGER FOR WHEN THIS UNFAITHFUL
MOMENT HAPPENS AGAIN, THIS MODERN DAY FORM OF LYNCHING TAKES PLACE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES, THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO LEAD TO THE DEATH WILL BE
PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. THANK YOU, AND I PROUDLY
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RAMOS.
MR. RAMOS: MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN MY
COLLEAGUES IN THANKING THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. I -- I BELIEVE I'M THE
ONLY MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY WHO HAS SPENT 20 YEARS AS A POLICE
OFFICER, AND HANDLED MANY CALLS OF MANY VIOLENT INSTANCES. AND I WILL
TELL YOU THAT AS A DETECTIVE, WHEN I WOULD RESPOND TO A SCENE OF A
MURDER WHERE SOMEBODY WAS STRANGLED, THE FIRST THING THAT WOULD CLICK
IN MY MIND IS THAT THIS IS A CRIME OF ANGER. THIS IS NOT YOUR NORMAL
THEFT. IT'S USUALLY SOMETHING OUT OF PASSION, OUT OF HATE, OUT OF RAGE.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO PASS A LAW TO TELL POLICE
OFFICERS YOU SHOULD NOT BE STRANGLING ANYBODY, IT IS -- IT JUST SEEMS
STRANGE TO ME. BUT WE HAVE TO, IN LIEU OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED. AND I
UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS HEAR THIS CHORUS OF VOICES SAYING,
22
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
YOU KNOW, MOST POLICE OFFICERS ARE GOOD AND THIS IS A FEW BAD APPLES.
AND IT'S TRUE. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. A 20-YEAR OFFICER, I SAW
HEROIC THINGS DONE BY OFFICERS OF ALL RACES. BUT I DO NOT DEFINE A GOOD
POLICE OFFICER AS SOMEBODY WHO STANDS THERE WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS
POCKET WHILE HIS COLLEAGUE KILLS SOMEBODY, WHILE HIS COLLEAGUE CHOKES
SOMEBODY, STRANGLES SOMEBODY AND THE PERSON BEING CHOKED SAYS, "I
CAN'T BREATHE." THE PERSON BEING CHOKED SAYS, "YOU ARE KILLING ME."
THE PERSON WHO IS BEING CHOKED IS CALLING OUT TO HIS DECEASED MOM
BEFORE HE DIES. THE PEOPLE STANDING IN THE AUDIENCE -- STANDING, THE
OBSERVERS, ARE SAYING, YOU ARE KILLING HIM. AND A POLICE OFFICER SAYS
TO HIM, HE HAS NO PULSE, COULD YOU GET OFF HIS NECK, AND HE SAYS, NO,
AND THEY STILL STAY THERE.
SO I COMMEND THE SPONSOR AND I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES. I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAMOS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. LIPETRI.
MR. LIPETRI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATIONS THAT HAVE
UNFOLDED, BUT WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THESE HEROES WHO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES FROM -- DAY IN AND DAY OUT ALSO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE
EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN VERY -- MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH MANY OF WHOM ARE UNAWARE OF TODAY IN THIS
CHAMBER AND THROUGHOUT THIS STATE THAT POLICE OFFICERS ENCOUNTER
SITUATIONS THAT ARE NEVER PUBLISHED IN THE MEDIA, WHETHER IT BE THE
23
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
OFFICER THAT STOPS SOMEONE FROM BEATING A VICTIM, OR COMMITTING A
RAPE, OR POTENTIALLY MURDERING SOMEBODY. OFFICERS MUST HAVE ALL THE
TOOLS AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THIS STATE TO DETER THAT CRIMINAL FROM
HURTING LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS.
FOR ME, I CAN'T GO BACK TO MY CONSTITUENTS, THOSE
FRIENDS, THOSE FAMILIES, THE POLICE OFFICERS THEMSELVES, WHO SAY, I'M THE
ONE THAT'S FOLLOWING THE RULES HERE, BUT THE CRIMINAL WHO WISHES TO HURT
ME OR KILL ME IS NOT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO,
MR. SPEAKER, IS TO DISARM OUR POLICE OFFICERS, PUTTING THEM AT A
DISADVANTAGE AGAINST A CRIMINAL THAT WISHES TO COMMIT SUCH INJURY AND
HARM ON THEM. FOR THOSE REASONS, MR. SPEAKER, I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LIPETRI IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. COLTON.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WANT TO
COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS GIVEN US
SOMETHING THAT CREATES SOME TRANSPARENCY AND SOME CLARITY IN TERMS OF
THIS LEGISLATION. I DO NOT IN ANY WAY WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS
PUNITIVE TO THE POLICE. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR POLICE TO
PROTECT US, ALL OF OUR FAMILIES. AND THIS BILL SIMPLY DOES NOT ACT IN A
PUNITIVE WAY. IT RECOGNIZES THAT THERE MUST BE INTENT. IT RECOGNIZES
THAT IN A DIRE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO
DO WHAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO SURVIVE IF HE IS BEING THREATENED WITH
FATAL ATTACK AGAINST HIMSELF. BUT, YET, IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A
VERY DANGEROUS MANEUVER AND IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER
24
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
NORMAL, ROUTINE POLICE ACTIVITY IN ORDER TO MAKE AN ARREST.
SO, BECAUSE THE BILL HAS THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE
REQUIRED, BECAUSE THE BILL HAS BASICALLY -- IT HAS A CLARITY THAT IT BRINGS
TO A DANGEROUS SITUATION, THEREFORE, I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND I VOTE
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. COLTON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. BICHOTTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR -- FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I FIRST WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT A CRIME FOR POLICE
OFFICERS TO OBSTRUCT BREATHING OR USING A CHOKEHOLD RESTRAINT.
JUST LAST MONTH, THE COUNTRY WATCHED IN HORROR AS CLIPS
OF OFFICER CHAUVIN KNEELING ON GEORGE FLOYD'S NECK FOR NINE MINUTES
CIRCULATING AROUND THE INTERNET. THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STILL HAVE NOT
FORGOTTEN ERIC GARNER, WHO WAS MURDERED THE VERY SAME WAY IN STATEN
ISLAND IN 2014. GARNER BEGGED FOR HIS LIFE AS AN OFFICER USED THE
CHOKEHOLD ON HIM. "I CAN'T BREATHE, I CAN'T BREATHE, I CAN'T BREATHE," HE
UTTERED, AS THE POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS LATER ACQUITTED CONTINUED
APPLYING FORCE TO HIS NECK.
FOR YEARS, OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN
THE DEADLY BEHAVIOR OF ADMINISTERING CHOKEHOLDS WHEN THERE IS NO
THREAT OF VIOLENCE, AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS A FORMAL POLICY ALREADY BARING
-- BARRING THEM IN SOME CITIES, IT IS UNENFORCED. IF VICTIMS HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION, THE COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- WOULD HAVE
25
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
IMPOSED STRICT SANCTIONS AND THIS WOULD NOT KEEP HAPPENING. IT'S
INHUMANE. GEORGE FLOYD AND ERIC GARNER CASES WERE BOTH TRIED
WITHOUT A JURY. THEY WERE GUILTY OF NO CRIME EXCEPT WHAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCUSED THEM OF, AND THAT WAS DEFINED BY THE COLOR OF
THEIR SKIN.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING JUSTICE, AND WE
MUST RESPOND. THAT IS WHY I AM VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TODAY.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU. MS.
BICHOTTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. RICHARDSON.
MS. RICHARDSON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
RISE TODAY EXHAUSTED. IT'S EVIDENT I'M AFRICAN-AMERICAN, I'M BLACK.
I'M A WOMAN, I'M A MOTHER. AND FOR WHAT IS GOING ON IN NEW YORK
STATE AND WHAT IS TAKING PLACE AROUND THE COUNTRY LEAVES ME IN A GREAT
DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF MY SON WILL MAKE IT HOME,
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAN I LOVE WILL MAKE IT HOME EITHER, OR ANY
OTHER MAN OR WOMAN IN MY LIFE. BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAS
BEEN A LONG HISTORY BETWEEN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY AND
COMMUNITIES IN GENERAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN SO
GOOD.
BEFORE I GET DEEP INTO THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I JUST WANT
TO ECHO THE SENTIMENTS THAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED.
WHEREAS THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT ALL APPLES ON THE TREE ARE BAD, BUT FOR
THE ONE OR TWO WHO ARE THERE, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE.
26
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AND SO, I COMMEND THE SPEAKER OF THIS LEGISLATION TODAY. AS WE PASS
LEGISLATION MAKING IT A CLASS C FELONY, A SERIOUS CLASS C FELONY CRIME,
TO CAUSE STRANGULATION AND TO CHOKE MEN AND WOMEN THAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING AND PROTECTING.
YOU KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, I WASN'T EVEN ELECTED WHEN
ERIC GARNER LOST HIS LIFE IN STATEN ISLAND. "I CAN'T BREATHE." SO I CAN
STAND HERE TODAY TO SPEAK FROM THE POINT OF THE CIVILIANS FROM THE
COMMUNITY WHO WATCHED THAT HORRIFIC VIDEO, WHO WE ALREADY KNEW
THAT THE SENTENCE -- WE ALREADY WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE SENTENCE
WOULD BE BEFORE THE CASE WAS HELD, BECAUSE FAR TOO OFTEN, POLICE
OFFICERS ARE LET GO AND SET FREE ON CRIMES THAT THEY DAMN SURE SHOULD BE
CHARGED FOR. EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, I GET PASSIONATE.
AND JUST LAST WEEK, MR. SPEAKER, NOW WE WATCHED THE
CASE OF -- OF GEORGE FLOYD. AND SO, THE SAME NECK, THE SAME KNEE ON
GEORGE FLOYD'S NECK IS THE SAME KNEE THAT WAS PUT ON THE NECK OF A
YOUNG MAN IN LOWER MANHATTAN. THE SAME WORDS HE SAID, "I CAN'T
BREATHE," WERE THE SAME WORDS ERIC GARNER SAID. BUT TODAY, WE LET
YOU BREATHE. TODAY, WE SAY THANK YOU TO THE NEW YORK STATE
LEGISLATURE FOR CREATING CHANGE. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. RICHARDSON IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. OTIS.
MR. OTIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND COLLEAGUES.
WE ARE AT A SERIOUS MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY, A LONG HISTORY OF INEQUALITY
IN THIS COUNTRY. WE MADE SOME GAINS OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE LOST SOME
27
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
GROUND IN RECENT YEARS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I WAS AT A RALLY YESTERDAY IN ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES I
REPRESENT, THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, I THINK WE HAD 2,000 PEOPLE
THERE. IT WAS A RALLY AND A MARCH OF LOVE. IT WAS A RALLY AND MARCH OF
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MAKE THIS A MORE JUST, A MORE CARING SOCIETY.
THERE WAS UNITY. THERE WAS HEARTFELT DESIRE FOR THE COMMUNITY
TOGETHER TO MAKE LIFE BETTER, NOT JUST ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES, BUT ON
BROADER ISSUES OF EQUALITY IN OUR SOCIETY.
AND SO, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO
DEAL IN THIS HOUSE ON SOME CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES THIS WEEK THAT ARE
VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT. AND WE HAVE A RIGHT -- WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, THE RIGHT MOMENT, TO MAKE THIS A MORE CARING,
GENTLE SOCIETY. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THE -- THE WORDS OF BARBARA
JORDAN THAT YOU'VE ALL HEARD, BUT THEY MEANT A LOT TO ME WHEN I HEARD
THEM THE FIRST TIME AND THEY MEAN A LOT TO ME TODAY: "WHAT THE PEOPLE
WANT IS VERY SIMPLE. THEY WANT AN AMERICA AS GOOD AS ITS PROMISE."
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY. I VOTE AYE, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF
WORK TO DO TO MAKE AMERICA LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISE. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR. MR.
OTIS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WAS
LISTENING TO THE DEBATE AND I -- I'M SATISFIED THAT WE WERE CLEAR DURING
THE DEBATE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND THE SPONSOR ABOUT JUSTIFICATION AND
28
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
IF THERE IS A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION, ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE WILL BE
WEIGHED. LET ME BE CLEAR, WHAT HAPPENED IN MINNEAPOLIS IS AN
ATROCITY. THAT OFFICER STOPPED BEING AN OFFICER THE MOMENT HE
INTENDED TO DO WHAT HE DID. THAT, AS AN OFFICER, TO ME, RIPPED MY HEART
OUT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE UNIFORM I WANT REPRESENTING ME.
I THINK WE HAD A TIME OF UNITY, BECAUSE WE HAD
OFFICERS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT WAS JUST
WRONG AND MURDER. I'M VERY -- I'M VERY EMOTIONAL ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE
I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT DOES TO THE COMMUNITY. I JUST CAN'T STAND HOW IT
TEARS US APART. AND I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, LISTENING TO ALL THE STORIES AND
THE EMOTION AND THE PAIN, I GET IT. I UNDERSTAND IT. AND I HOPE THAT THE
JUSTIFICATION PART, IF IT EVER HAS TO BE WHEN AN OFFICER IS SAVING HIS LIFE
OR SAVING SOMEONE ELSE'S LIFE, THAT THEY GET THE FULL DUE PROCESS OF THE
LAW, THAT THAT INCLUDES JUSTIFICATION AND DEFENSE. BUT IF THEY DO AN ACT
THAT IS INTENTIONAL AND CAUSES THE DEATH OF SOMEONE ELSE, THEN LIKE
EVERYBODY ELSE, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I JUST THINK THAT WE
NEED TO ALL UNDERSTAND THAT AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. REILLY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE
FOLLOWING REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL: MR. LIPETRI, MR.
LAWRENCE AND MR. LALOR. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR. SO
29
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
NOTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
RULES REPORT NO. 65, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A10608, RULES REPORT
NO. 65, COMMITTEE ON RULES (PERRY, HEASTIE, WALKER, FRONTUS,
FERNANDEZ, RICHARDSON, CRESPO, JAFFEE, OTIS, VANEL, SIMOTAS,
HYNDMAN, GOTTFRIED, WEPRIN, COLTON). AN ACT TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE
LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR PEACE
OFFICER WHO DISCHARGES HIS OR HER WEAPON UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A
PERSON COULD BE STRUCK BY A BULLET TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE INCIDENT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED.
MR. PERRY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I AM
RESPONDING AND I WOULD LIKE TO HONOR WITH THIS RESPONSE THE LIFE OF
JAYSON TIRADO WHO WAS SHOT AND KILLED WHILE DRIVING A CAR ON THE FDR
IN 2007 BY A NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER.
THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE POLICE OR PEACE OFFICERS WHO
DISCHARGES THEIR WEAPONS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE COULD
BE STRUCK BY A BULLET TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE INCIDENT. IT WILL NOT
INCLUDE CASES LIKE FIRING THEIR WEAPONS AT OFFICIAL OR LEGAL TRAINING
SITES. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
30
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. PERRY: I WILL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. PERRY. JUST A LITTLE
BIT OF CLARIFICATION. WHEN YOU REFER TO A -- A PEACE OFFICER OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO DISCHARGES HIS OR HER WEAPON, YOUR REFERENCE
TO "WEAPON" WOULD MEAN HIS SERVICE REVOLVER?
MR. PERRY: A GUN.
MR. GOODELL: WOULD IT INVOLVE A HUNTER, FOR
EXAMPLE, USING A PRIVATE RIFLE? OR ARE YOU INTENDING IT REALLY TO BE THE
SERVICE REVOLVER?
MR. PERRY: WELL, IF, MR. GOODELL, THE HUNTER IS A
PERSON, I THINK IT SHOULD AND WOULD. IT SAYS A PERSON, A POLICE OFFICER.
MR. GOODELL: SO, WE HAVE, AS YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE, WE HAVE ABOUT 600,000 PEOPLE WHO ARE -- WHO GET A PERMIT TO
HUNT, TYPICALLY DEER, AND WHILE WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE THAT OUR HUNTERS
ARE REMARKABLY CAREFUL AND THEY ALL GO THROUGH A SAFETY TRAINING CLASS,
PERIODICALLY THERE ARE ACCIDENTS. SO, YOU WOULD THINK THIS WOULD
EXTEND A SPECIAL OBLIGATION ON ANY HUNTER WHO'S ALSO A POLICE OFFICER OR
A PEACE OFFICER TO REPORT THE POSSIBILITY THAT WHILE HUNTING WILD
ANIMALS, A BULLET MAY HAVE -- MAY HAVE BEEN HEADED IN THE DIRECTION
OF ANY OTHER PERSON? IT'S PRETTY BROAD.
MR. PERRY: MR. GOODELL, IF YOU FIRE A WEAPON
AIMED IN THE DIRECTION OF A PERSON, IT SHOULD BE REPORTED.
31
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. GOODELL: NOW THIS BILL, OF COURSE, DOESN'T
REQUIRE THAT THE WEAPON BE FIRED -- AIMED AT ANY PERSON, RIGHT, IT JUST
SAYS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREIN A PERSON COULD BE STRUCK BY A BULLET.
I MEAN THAT'S VERY -- THAT'S VERY BROAD. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT ANYONE
ACTUALLY BE AIMING AT ANYONE ELSE, RIGHT?
MR. PERRY: WELL, I THINK WE CAN GET VERY PICKY
ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OR -- OR INTERPRETATION. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
SHOOTING THAT OCCUR ACROSS THE STATE. YOU REFER TO HUNTERS ARE OUT THERE
WITH THEIR WEAPONS ALL THE TIME. THEY ARE FIRING AND, CERTAINLY,
SOMEBODY CAN BE SHOT ACCIDENTALLY. BUT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE
SITUATIONS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHOOTINGS THAT OCCUR WHERE YOU HAVE
THE POSSESSION AND LICENSE FOR A WEAPON AND YOU SHOOT AT SOMEBODY.
MR. GOODELL: SO YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A
SITUATION INVOLVING WHAT YOU MIGHT REFER TO AS RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT,
WHERE YOU'RE DISCHARGING A WEAPON AIMED GENERALLY AT ANOTHER PERSON,
NOT ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS THAT WOULD -- MIGHT OCCUR, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE
CONTEXT OF A HUNTING ACCIDENT. YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A MORE
DELIBERATE ACT WHERE THE GUN IS AIMED AT ANOTHER PERSON; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: THAT'S MORE LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. AND I'M SURE, LIKE ALL THE BILLS WE PASS HERE, IT WILL BE SUBJECT
TO SOME INTERPRETATION BASED ON FUTURE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE HAS
TO OFFER A DEFENSE FOR HAVING BROKEN THE LAW.
MR. GOODELL: NOW, I -- I SEE THAT YOU PROVIDED
AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AN OFFICER, UNDER NO
32
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: YES.
MR. GOODELL: OKAY. UNDER THE EXECUTIVE LAW,
SECTION 837 OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, WE ALREADY REQUIRE ALL POLICE
DEPARTMENTS TO REPORT THE DISCHARGE OF ANY WEAPON, ANY SERVICE
REVOLVER. IS IT YOUR INTENT THAT THIS LAW WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
EXECUTIVE LAW SECTION 837?
MR. PERRY: IT'S SIMILAR.
MR. GOODELL: AND HOW WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT?
MR. PERRY: IT'S NOT LIMITED TO A PISTOL. OR IS IT --
IT'S NOT LIMITED TO A HANDGUN.
MR. GOODELL: SO IF IT'S NOT LIMITED TO A SERVICE
WEAPON, WHY WOULD WE HAVE THE POLICE OFFICER REPORT IT TO HIS POLICE
SUPERIOR?
MR. PERRY: WELL, IF A POLICE OFFICER SHOT AT
SOMEBODY YOU WOULD THINK IT WISE, PROPER AND IN GOOD ACCORDANCE
WITH OUR EXPECTATION OF RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR THAT YOU WILL BE REPORTED
TO YOUR SUPERVISING OFFICER, ESPECIALLY IF YOU FIRED IT IN A RECKLESS
MANNER OR IN AN AREA OR IN -- WHERE SOMEBODY COULD HAVE BEEN
INJURED. AND ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU HAVE BECOME AWARE THAT SOMEBODY
WAS ACTUALLY SHOT AND DIED THAT, YOU KNOW, VERY WELL THAT THAT WAS VERY
LIKELY THE BULLET FROM THE GUN YOU FIRED.
MR. GOODELL: I SEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
PERRY.
33
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALREADY
REQUIRES ANY POLICE OFFICER WHO DISCHARGES HIS WEAPON TO REPORT THAT TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND IT REQUIRES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE
THAT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES. SO,
THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. AND OF COURSE, IF AN OFFICER ILLEGALLY FIRES A GUN
AT A PERSON IN A ROAD RAGE SITUATION OR ANY OTHER SITUATION, IF HE
ILLEGALLY FIRES A GUN AT A PERSON OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES,
THIS BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE HIM TO REPORT IT. BECAUSE THIS BILL IS CLEAR THAT
THE OFFICER DOESN'T WAIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AVOID
INCRIMINATING HIMSELF UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. SO WE HAVE AN
INTERESTING SITUATION WITH THIS BILL WHERE EVERY GUN THAT'S FIRED THAT'S A
SERVICE REVOLVER IS ALREADY REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED, SO THAT PART OF THE
BILL SEEMS TO BE ALREADY COVERED. AND THEN THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED
TO JUSTIFY THIS BILL IS EXCLUDED UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL ANYWAY.
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED OVER THE SCOPE OF THIS BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS THAT
WE'RE IMPOSING A NEW DUTY THAT IS BROADER THAN ANYTHING THAT CURRENTLY
APPLIES TO ANY HUNTER, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALSO
HUNTS. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SINGLE OUT POLICE OFFICERS FOR A
DIFFERENT TYPE OF DUTY OR REPORTING THAN ANY OF THE OTHER 600,000
HUNTERS. SO WHILE I THINK THE BILL HAS VIRTUALLY NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
BECAUSE WE ALREADY REQUIRE SERVICE OFFICERS TO REPORT IF THEIR SERVICE
WEAPON IS FIRED, THE EXCEPTION EXCLUDES ANY ILLEGAL USE OF A WEAPON.
34
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AND I GUESS BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE
IN THE CONTEXT OF RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, WHICH ITSELF IS A CRIME. IT JUST
LEAVES ME A LITTLE BIT WONDERING WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS LAW. THAT'S
ALL, SIR.
THANK YOU, THOUGH. AND, AGAIN, THANK YOU TO MY
COLLEAGUE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.
GOODELL.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH
DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT NO. 65. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL. ANY MEMBER
WISHING TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE
MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
AND MR. PERRY TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. PERRY: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THANK YOU FOR PERMISSION TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. ON OCTOBER 21, 2007,
JAYSON TIRADO WAS SHOT AND KILLED WHILE TRAVELING IN A MOTOR CAR WITH
FRIENDS ON THE FDR. UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE IN EAST HARLEM,
WITNESSES INFORMED THE POLICE THAT THE INCIDENT WAS A ROAD-RAGE KILLING,
THAT MR. TIRADO WAS SHOT BY AN UNKNOWN SHOOTER WHO DISCHARGED THE
WEAPON AT THE CAR AFTER ARGUING WITH THE YOUNG MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY CUT
HIM OFF ON THE FDR. THE SHOOTER FIRED HIS GUN AND FLED THE SCENE.
35
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE SHOOTER LEFT AN INJURED YOUNG MAN WHO DIED FROM THE GUNSHOT.
THE SHOOTER HAD MADE HIMSELF JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER. ON
OCTOBER 22ND, MORE THAN 24 HOURS AFTER THE INCIDENT, POLICE OFFICER
SEAN SAWYER, AN NYPD POLICE OFFICER, TURNED HIMSELF INTO THE POLICE.
SAWYER APPROACHED A RADIO CAR NEAR CENTRAL PARK AND CLAIMED HE HAD
CHEST PAINS AND REQUESTED AN AMBULANCE. SAWYER THEN TOLD THE
SERGEANT THAT -- AN OFFICER IN THE VEHICLE THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS
INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING WHILE HE WAS OFF DUTY IN HIS CAR 19 HOURS
EARLIER, AND THAT HE WAS THE KILLER OF JAYSON TIRADO. A MANHATTAN JURY
IN 2008 DECLINED TO INDICT SAWYER FOR SHOOTING 25-YEAR-OLD TIRADO,
WHO WAS UNARMED AND (UNINTELLIGIBLE) THE SCENE.
(BUZZER SOUNDING)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY, YOUR TWO
MINUTES ARE UP. HOW DO YOU VOTE?
MR. PERRY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MAY I
RESUME THE DEBATE SO I CAN FINISH MY STATEMENT?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE ONLY WAY WE CAN
DO IS WITHDRAW THE BILL. WITHDRAW THE VOTE.
MR. PERRY: I MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE VOTE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU SHOULD SPEAK TO
YOUR MINORITY LEADER -- MAJORITY LEADER.
(PAUSE)
MR. PERRY.
MR. PERRY: MR. SPEAKER, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
36
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, SIR.
MS. BICHOTTE TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I FIRST WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL WHICH WE KNOW AS TODAY AS THE NEW YORK -- NEW
YORKERS' RIGHT TO MONITOR ACT, WHICH IS A -- WHICH WILL GRANT CIVILIANS
WHO ARE NOT UNDER ARREST THE RIGHT TO RECORD CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THAT
RECORDING AFTER THE INCIDENT.
MR. SPEAKER, TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE SEE HOW
INDIVIDUALS ARE MISTREATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND IN MANY
INCIDENCES, IF IT WERE NOT FOR A VIDEO RECORDING, SOME OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANY ATTENTION OR ANY JUSTICE. JUST
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, A RECORDING SURFACED OF THE HEINOUS MURDER OF
AHMAUD ARBERY, THEN AGAIN OF GEORGE FLOYD, WHICH IS BECAUSE OF
THOSE VIDEO RECORDINGS WHY THERE'S A MASS PROTEST ACROSS THE NATION
AND ACROSS THE WORLD. AGAIN, IF IT WERE NOT FOR THOSE VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE THAT WAS CAPTURED BY ORDINARY CIVILIANS, WE MIGHT NOT
HAVE KNOWN THE REAL STORY. AND FOR THE LOVED ONES --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BICHOTTE, I DON'T
BELIEVE YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE BILL THAT'S ON THE BOARD AT THE MOMENT.
THIS IS A DISCHARGE OF WEAPON BILL, NOT THE BILL I THINK YOU'RE
REFERENCING.
MS. BICHOTTE: OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. I'M
37
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SORRY. WITHDRAW.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU'RE WELCOME.
MR. COLTON.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AGAIN,
THIS IS A BILL WHICH BASICALLY REQUIRES WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, THAT
UPON A DISCHARGE OF A WEAPON THAT THE OFFICER SHOULD NOTIFY HIS
SUPERVISOR. THEREFORE, I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TRANSPARENT,
IS -- IS QUITE CLEAR, AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE LAW. IT MAY BE COVERED BY
THE EXECUTIVE LAW, BUT THIS MAKES IT VERY CLEAR. I DO -- WOULD NOT
WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION, HOWEVER -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT IT'S NOT MY INTENT TO BE VOTING FOR SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES ANY TIME
A HUNTER WHO HAPPENS TO BE A POLICE OFFICER FIRES HIS WEAPON AT AN
ANIMAL -- I MEAN, I DON'T LIKE HUNTING, I DON'T BASICALLY AGREE WITH THAT,
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT AS A REPORT.
BUT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BILL IS THAT IN THE COURSE OF HIS
DUTY HE FIRES HIS WEAPON, HE IS REQUIRED TO REPORT IT TO HIS SUPERVISOR,
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE TO REQUIRE.
THEREFORE, I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND I VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. COLTON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GARBARINO.
MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. WE HAVE DEBATED THIS BILL FOR YEARS IN THE CODES
COMMITTEE. THE SPONSOR HAS A SPECIFIC REASON WHY HE'S PUTTING THIS
38
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
BILL IN. UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF DEBATE WE HAVE GIVEN
THE SPONSOR AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL THAT WE THINK WOULD HAVE
ADDRESSED HIS ACTUAL CONCERNS. BUT AS WE HEARD IN THE DEBATE, THIS BILL
IS OVERLY BROAD TALKING ABOUT A POLICE OFFICER'S WEAPON. IT DOESN'T SAY
HIS SERVICE WEAPON, IT TALKS ABOUT ANY WEAPON. IT TALKS ABOUT IN A -- IN
A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A PERSON COULD BE STRUCK BY A BULLET, THAT IS
OVERLY BROAD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS BILL IS BEING PUSHED FORWARD
THE WAY IT IS NOW. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE
THAT THE SPONSOR WANTED IT TO, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THIS BILL.
SO THEREFORE, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT AND I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO ALSO -- TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GARBARINO IN THE
NEGATIVE. THANK YOU, SIR.
(PAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER VANEL: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE
FOLLOWING REPUBLICANS ARE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL: MR. BARCLAY, MR.
GARBARINO, MYSELF, MR. GIGLIO, MR. LIPETRI, MR. PALUMBO, MR. RA, MS.
WALSH, MR. ASHBY, MR. DIPIETRO, MR. FITZPATRICK, MR. FRIEND, MR.
LAWRENCE, MR. MANKTELOW, MR. MONTESANO, MR. MORINELLO, MR.
NORRIS, MR. SALKA, MR. TAGUE, MR. DE -- DESTEFANO -- SORRY, JOE -- MR.
LALOR, MR. MILLER, MR. BYRNE, MR. HAWLEY, MR. BLANKENBUSH, MR.
CROUCH. I BELIEVE MR. REILLY, MR. PALMESANO. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE
MOMENT. I SHOULD HAVE SAID AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN
39
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
CONFERENCE, BUT THAT WE STILL HAVE SOME YES VOTES ON THIS. SO WE'LL
UPDATE YOU IF WE HEAR ANYTHING FURTHER.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER VANEL: MR. RODRIGUEZ TO
EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY -- MY VOTE. I FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK IN
PARTICULAR BECAUSE MR. TIRADO WAS KILLED ON THE STREETS OF EAST HARLEM
ON THE FDR DRIVE, THE AREA THAT I REPRESENT, AND OBVIOUSLY WAS ALSO A
LATINO MAN. BUT I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY IS WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THE
CONTEXT. A POLICE OFFICER SHOOTING THEIR WEAPON IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE MOST SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THEY HAVE IN TERMS OF -- TOOLS THAT
THEY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE DONE LIGHTLY OR BE CONSIDERED LIGHTLY. AND THERE'S MANY IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT THINK THAT ANY TIME A DISCHARGE OF -- OF A WEAPON
HAPPENS IN THE LINE OF DUTY, THAT SHOULD BE REPORTED AND RECORDED, AND
EITHER TO ENSURE THAT PROPER TRAINING EXISTS, AND BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE
THAT SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS DIDN'T OCCUR. SO I THINK THIS IS A
REASONABLE COMPROMISE LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, QUITE
FRANKLY, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE USE OF
WEAPONS, BUT CERTAINLY CREATES SOME MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
RECORD IT AND THAT SOME ACTION CAN BE TAKEN TO EITHER RECTIFY, YOU KNOW,
BEHAVIORS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN THAT DISCHARGE, AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE ARE SAFE ON THE STREETS.
SO AS A RESULT, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND
40
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.
ACTING SPEAKER VANEL: MR. RODRIGUEZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. RODRIGUEZ.
(PAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL COLLEAGUE SANTABARBARA IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS ONE?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED, MRS.
PEOPLES-STOKES.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
YOU PLEASE RECORD THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL REPUBLICANS IN THE
NEGATIVE: MR. STEC, MR. MCDONOUGH AND MS. MALLIOTAKIS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED. THANK
YOU, SIR.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ARE THERE ANY OTHER
VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
RULES REPORT NO. 66, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A10609, RULES REPORT
NO. 66, COMMITTEE ON RULES (LENTOL, HEASTIE, MOSLEY, DARLING,
FRONTUS, PERRY, AUBRY, QUART, BARRON, D. ROSENTHAL, DE LA ROSA,
EPSTEIN, HEVESI, FERNANDEZ, PICHARDO, L. ROSENTHAL, BLAKE, TAYLOR,
41
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
REYES, GOTTFRIED, NIOU, O'DONNELL, CRUZ, SIMON, KIM, SIMOTAS, GLICK,
CARROLL, ROZIC, WRIGHT, JAFFEE, ORTIZ, BARNWELL, RICHARDSON,
MAGNARELLI, VANEL, OTIS, DAVILA). AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE LAW AND THE JUDICIARY LAW, IN RELATION TO FUNCTIONS OF THE
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN
RELATION TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED, MR. LENTOL.
MR. LENTOL: SURE, MR. SPEAKER. THIS IS THE
SO-CALLED "STAT ACT" THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT LATELY, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S BEEN PASSED BY OUR HOUSE, THE ASSEMBLY, FOUR YEARS IN A
ROW AND IT HASN'T YET MADE IT THROUGH THE STATE SENATE. BUT WE'RE
HOPEFUL FOR THIS YEAR. SO THIS IS A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLICE
DEPARTMENTS STATEWIDE TO RECORD AND REPORT DATA ON THE DEMOGRAPHICS
AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF PEOPLE APPREHENDED FOR LOW-LEVEL OFFENSES,
AND PEOPLE WHO DIE IN POLICE CUSTODY IN ORDER TO FIND ACCURATE DATA
ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES AND POLICE RESPONSES. IT'S ACTUALLY A BILL THAT
EMERGED AS A RECOMMENDATION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 21ST CENTURY
POLICE TASK FORCE SET UP AFTER THE FERGUSON UNREST IN 2014.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LENTOL, WILL YOU
42
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
YIELD?
MR. LENTOL: YES, I'LL YIELD.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LENTOL YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. LENTOL. ALWAYS
GOOD TO SEE YOU ON THE BIG SCREEN. AT LEAST IT'S A BIG SCREEN
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MR. LENTOL, THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE EVERY COURT TO LIST
FOR EVERY VIOLATION - WHICH WOULD BE TRAFFIC TICKETS AND MINOR
OFFENSES, AS WELL AS EVERY MISDEMEANOR - THE RACE, ETHNICITY, AGE, SEX
AND A NUMBER OF OTHER CRITERIA. I THINK THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 23 CRITERIA
FOR EACH DEFENDANT. IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. LENTOL: I DIDN'T COUNT, BUT I KNOW YOU DID SO
I'LL SAY YOU'RE -- YOU'RE CORRECT. I KNOW YOU CAN COUNT.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, MY DISTRICT IS JUST A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT THAN YOURS. IN FACT, I THINK I'M PROBABLY AS FAR FROM YOUR
DISTRICT GEOGRAPHICALLY AND DEMOGRAPHICALLY, PERHAPS, AS WE CAN GET.
BUT IN -- IN MY DISTRICT I HAVE 26 TOWNS, 13 VILLAGES AND TWO CITIES. SO,
WE WOULD REQUIRE EVERY ONE OF THOSE COURTS TO FILL OUT A FORM THAT GIVES
DATA ON 23 DIFFERENT ITEMS? THAT'S A LOT OF PAPERWORK FOR A LOT OF VERY
SMALL COURTS. WHY -- WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THAT?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, I THINK -- I THINK THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION IS IT USED TO BE A LOT OF DATA. I THINK UNDER THE PRESENT
SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, THERE ARE TWO THINGS GOING ON:
FIRST, IS THAT WE HAVE COMPUTERIZATION. AND -- AND THE WAY TO DO THIS
IS A LOT FASTER THAN IT USED TO BE BY HAND, WHERE DATA CAN BE ENTERED
43
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
INTO A COMPUTER. THE SECOND THING IS, I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE THINKS
THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO COMPILE ALL THIS DATA, WHETHER IT'S FOR LOW-LEVEL
OFFENSES OR EVEN THE HIGHER-LEVEL OFFENSES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE ARE RACIAL DISPARITIES, JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THE FACTS. WE
DON'T WANT TO ACCUSE ANYBODY OF ANYTHING UNLESS WE CAN SEE IT ON THE
RECORD. SO THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THOSE POLICE
DEPARTMENTS THAT DON'T NOW COMPLY WITH THIS KIND OF A PROCEDURE THAT
IS OUTLINED FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THE LAW. BUT
A LOT OF -- A LOT OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS DO COMPLY ALREADY. BUT SOME
BIG DEPARTMENTS - I'M NOT GOING TO NAME THEM BY NAME - BUT THERE ARE
SOME THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED. AND WE NEED ACCURATE STATISTICS FROM
AROUND THE STATE SO THAT WE HAVE ACCURATE DATA AND WE DON'T ACCUSE
ANYBODY WRONGLY OF -- OF DOING SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, THIS BILL - WHILE IT MAY
REQUIRE THE POLICE TO ALSO REPORT THAT ON THE ARREST RECORDS - ACTUALLY
FOCUSES REALLY ON ALL THE COURTS, CORRECT?
MR. LENTOL: YES, IT DOES. IT HAS -- IT HAS -- IT
FOCUSES ON THE COURTS TO COMPILE DATA ON THE MISDEMEANORS AND THE
VIOLATIONS THAT -- ON -- ON SUMMONSES THAT ARE WRITTEN. BUT, IT'S -- IT'S
MORE OF A -- A JOB FOR DCJS WHEN IT COMES TO POLICE-RELATED DEATHS
WHERE SOMEBODY DIES IN POLICE CUSTODY.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, I WOULD -- I WOULD POINT OUT
THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE POLICE ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION, RIGHT, ON A
TRAFFIC TICKET TO REPORT THE RACE, ETHNICITY, AGE OR SEX OF THE DRIVER,
CORRECT?
44
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. LENTOL: YES, THAT -- THAT IS CORRECT. AS A
MATTER OF FACT, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE AT ONE TIME
THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT OF RACE BEING PLACED ON EVERY SUMMONS THAT
WAS ISSUED. AND SOMEHOW, IT MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED FROM -- NOT
ONLY FROM THE LAW, BUT FROM THE SUMMONS BOOKS OF OFFICERS, I LEARNED,
AND THAT IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT AFTER A CERTAIN
TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN THAT WAS, BUT IT WAS PROBABLY AT
LEAST SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO.
MR. GOODELL: AND IF I -- WAS IT YOUR INTENT THAT
THE REPORT OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, FOR EXAMPLE, BE SELF-REPORTED BY THE
DEFENDANT? I MEAN, AFTER ALL -- I MEAN, SOMETIMES -- TAKING ETHNICITY
AS AN EXAMPLE, I'M HALF SWEDISH, I'M 1/8TH SCOTCH -- MAYBE A LITTLE
MORE ON WEEKENDS. BUT HOW -- IS IT UP TO US TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY OUR
ETHNICITY?
MR. LENTOL: AS BEST AS CAN BE DETERMINED WOULD
BE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. NOT -- NOT TO GO CRAZY AND TRY TO GET EXACT
INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ITALIAN OR SPANISH.
MR. GOODELL: JUST AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE, THE
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS IS RIGHT NEXT TO MY DISTRICT, AND IRONICALLY,
THAT'S A -- THAT SYSTEM IS ALL BASED ON THE MOTHER'S IDENTITY. SO A FEW
YEARS BACK WE HAD THE CHIEF, OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATION, HIS OWN
CHILDREN WERE NOT CONSIDERED SENECA BECAUSE THEIR MOTHER WAS -- WAS
NOT A SENECA, WAS NOT AN INDIAN. WOULD WE USE THE SAME POLICY?
MR. LENTOL: NO. WE WOULD -- WE WOULD
DETERMINE IT BY THE OFFICER'S -- WE WOULD TRUST THE OFFICER TO DETERMINE
45
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
WHETHER OR NOT THE ETHNICITY OF THAT PERSON WERE NATIVE AMERICAN OR
NOT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION HE GOT FROM THE SUBJECT, AS WELL AS
FROM HIS OWN OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GOODELL: NOW LAST YEAR -- OR ACTUALLY, I THINK
IT WAS MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE HAD A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE
ALL REPORTS TO SEPARATELY LIST EACH ASIAN-PACIFIC NATION. I THINK THERE
WERE 30 OR 40 DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS. WOULD YOU ENVISION THAT THAT
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY HERE AS WELL?
MR. LENTOL: NO. WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
MAKE THIS COMPLICATED. THIS IS VERY SIMPLE. IT'S TRYING TO LOOK FOR
RACIAL DISPARITIES WHERE THEY EXIST. AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT
GOING TO BE DETERMINABLE BY AN OFFICER, SO THE RACE WILL EITHER GO BLANK
OR MAYBE IT WILL BE RECORDED ERRONEOUSLY.
MR. GOODELL: AS YOU AND I DISCUSSED, THE CURRENT
ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS, A TRAFFIC TICKET, WHATEVER, THEY DON'T IDENTIFY A
PERSON'S RACE. THEY JUST SPECIFY THE ALLEGED ACTIVITY THAT WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED A CRIME. DO YOU ENVISION, THEN, THAT EVERY TOWN, VILLAGE,
CITY, COUNTY JUDGE WOULD ASK THE DEFENDANT WHAT THEIR RACE AND
ETHNICITY WOULD BE AS PART OF THE NORMAL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SO THAT
THIS COULD BE REPORTED ACCURATELY?
MR. LENTOL: NO. I -- I -- I ENVISION THAT OCA WILL
TRY TO GET IT RIGHT, AND THAT IS THE SITUATION.
MR. GOODELL: NOW, THIS ALSO REQUIRES A REPORT
LISTING THE REASONS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE. NOW, MOST OF THE TIME
THE DISMISSAL IS BECAUSE THE COURT FEELS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS
46
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
INNOCENT. MANY TIMES THE DISMISSAL REFLECTS A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT.
DO YOU ENVISION, THEN, THAT EVERY DISMISSAL WOULD CITE THAT THIS IS PART
OF A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT FOR A HIGHER-CHARGE CRIME?
MR. LENTOL: NOT NECESSARILY. I THINK -- AGAIN, IT'S
GOING TO ALSO BE ON -- IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL, AS BEST AS CAN BE
DETERMINED, AS TO WHAT THE CAUSE OF THE DISMISSAL WAS. I'M NOT TRYING
TO GET EXACT INFORMATION ALL THE TIME IF WE CAN'T GET IT, BUT WE ARE TRYING
TO GET INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO NO INFORMATION.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. LENTOL.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: I -- I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S
CURIOSITY AND HIS DESIRE TO KNOW HOW EVERY SINGLE TICKET OR CHARGE IS
ADDRESSED, AND THE RACE, ETHNICITY, AGE AND SEX OF EVERY SINGLE
DEFENDANT, AND THAT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE REPORTED ALONG
WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS. IN FACT, A TOTAL OF 23 DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR
EVERY SINGLE DEFENDANT AND EVERY SINGLE TRAFFIC TICKET INVOLVING EVERY
SINGLE COURT, INCLUDING THE SMALLEST MUNICIPAL COURTS OR TOWN COURTS.
IN MY COUNTY I HAVE TOWN COURTS THAT ONLY MEET ONCE OR TWICE,
SOMETIMES NOT EVEN -- NORMALLY ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH. AND THEY'RE
STAFFED BY A PART-TIME CLERK. AND QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT OF THE DEFENDANTS
MIGHT BE OFFENDED IF YOU ASKED THEM, WHAT IS YOUR RACE? WHAT IS
YOUR ETHNICITY? WHAT IS YOUR AGE? AND NOW IN TODAY'S SOCIETY I'M NOT
QUITE SURE WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU ASK SOMEONE, WHAT'S YOUR SEX?
47
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT CATEGORY WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO DELVE INTO.
AND SO THEN IF YOU START MULTIPLYING THIS OUT, 23 DIFFERENT CRITERIA,
MULTIPLE ANSWERS FOR EACH CRITERIA, YOU START TO REALIZE THAT WE'RE ASKING
FOR MILLIONS OF DATA POINTS. AND SO WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, WHAT
DO WE ACHIEVE? WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT.
WE KNOW IT'S AN UNFUNDED MANDATE ON ALL THE LOCAL COURTS. WE END UP
WITH A MASSIVE REPORT THAT WILL NEVER BE PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO
BE TOO MASSIVE. PRESUMABLY, THE DATA MIGHT BE SEARCHABLE BY RESEARCH
SCIENTISTS OR SOMEBODY ELSE. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OVERALL
PURPOSE IS. WE KNOW ON SERIOUS OFFENSES WHAT THE DATA IS, BUT DO WE
REALLY NEED TO KNOW THAT ON A MINOR TRESPASSING CHARGE WHAT THE
ETHNICITY WAS OF THE PERSON? OR A NOISE COMPLAINT OR ANY OTHER
VIOLATION? A ZONING VIOLATION WOULD PRESUMABLY FALL WITHIN THIS SINCE
IT'S A VIOLATION? IT'S JUST WAY OVERBOARD. AND UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE IT
IS SO BROAD, THE COST OF COMPILING THIS WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL AND ITS UTILITY
WILL BE LIMITED.
WHEN I FIRST GOT OUT OF LAW SCHOOL I USED TO PRACTICE
SECURITIES LAW. AND AS YOU KNOW, OUR SECURITIES LAW ARE VERY, VERY
DETAILED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY STOCK OFFERING BE ACCURATE AND
HONEST. AND THEY PURSUE THAT ACCURACY AND HONESTY WITH UNQUESTIONED
ZEAL TO ENSURE INVESTORS AREN'T DEFRAUDED. BUT WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE
SEC HAS POINTED OUT THAT YOU CAN HIDE INFORMATION BY PROVIDING TOO
MUCH. AND SO THIS BILL IN THE PAST HAD -- LAST YEAR HAD 44 NEGATIVE
VOTES, I THINK PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OVER THE HUGE COST AND
TIME AND MANPOWER AND THE LIMITED UTILITY. BUT I WOULD MAKE A
48
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PERSONAL COMMITMENT THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO WORK WITH THE SPONSOR,
WITH WHOM I HAVE GREAT RESPECT, TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL SO WE
FOCUS ON THE SERIOUS CHARGES, DEALING WITH OUR SUPERIOR COURTS, AND NOT
BURDEN EVERY LITTLE COURT WITH EVERY LITTLE INFRACTION WITH A MASSIVE
REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
THANK YOU, SIR. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO MY
COLLEAGUE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. RAMOS.
MR. RAMOS: WILL THE SPONSOR -- SPONSOR YIELD FOR A
-- FOR A FEW QUESTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LENTOL, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. LENTOL: YES, I WILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LENTOL YIELDS.
MR. RAMOS: MR. LENTOL, WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT
ARE BEING ASKED HERE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS, I ASSUME, IS SO THAT WE CAN
KEEP TRACK OF ANY TRENDS OR ANY INJUSTICES THAT ARE ALLEGED CAN BE
BACKED UP BY SOME OF THE DATA. IS -- IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. LENTOL: THAT'S RIGHT. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE
THEM, BUT WE WANT TO PUT IN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF ARRESTS AND
PLACES WHERE A POLICE OFFICER MIGHT GO TO MAKE AN ARREST, IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE'S FOLLOWING SOME KIND OF A PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR THAT MAY GIVE US SOME METRICS ABOUT WHO'S BEING ARRESTED
AND WHO'S NOT BEING ARRESTED.
49
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. RAMOS: AND I HAVE SEEN THAT THE WAY THINGS
ARE REPORTED AND CLASSIFIED IN -- IN REPORTS REALLY MAKES A BIG
DIFFERENCE. AND I'LL -- I'LL -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. FOR INSTANCE,
YOU HAVE CRIMES THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS BIAS CRIMES, BUT THAT THEY KIND OF
BLEND INTO OTHER CRIMES. FOR INSTANCE, IF -- IF A GROUP OF PEOPLE CHASE
DOWN A PERSON OF COLOR AND THEY START USING RACIAL SLURS AND THEY --
THEY BEAT HIM UP BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, AND ONE IN THE GROUP TAKES HIS --
TAKES THE GUY'S WALLET AND THEY CHOOSE TO CLASSIFY THAT AS A ROBBERY, NOT
AS A BIAS CRIME, THE WAY THINGS ARE REPORTED AND THE DATA CAN REALLY BE
SKEWED, RIGHT? SO I -- I ASSUME THAT THIS BILL GOES TOWARDS HAVING
MORE ACCURATE RAW DATA THAT CAN BE ANALYZED DOWN THE ROAD IF THERE ARE
ISSUES.
MR. LENTOL: CORRECT.
MR. RAMOS: YES. AND MR. LENTOL, WE HEARD IT
SAID HERE THAT WE SHOULD LIMIT THIS AND TAKE OUT, BECAUSE IT'S TOO
BURDENSOME, TO HAVE MINOR OFFENSES BE PART OF THIS REPORTING.
MR. LENTOL: THE MINOR -- THE MINOR OFFENSES ARE
THE MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE CAN SEE A PATTERN STARTING
TO DEVELOP THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO NIP IN THE BUD. WE'RE NOT -- WE DON'T
WANT TO ACCUSE EVERY OFFICER OF BAD BEHAVIOR, BUT MAYBE SOME OF THEM
ARE GETTING INTO IT UNWITTINGLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE TOLD TO GO TO
MAKE THE ARREST, FOR EXAMPLE.
MR. RAMOS: THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT
QUESTION. ISN'T IT MINOR OFFENSES THAT IS USED EN MASSE AGAINST PEOPLE
OF COLOR? THE STOP AND FRISK.
50
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. LENTOL: YES.
MR. RAMOS: THE LOITERING. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
MR. LENTOL: THANK YOU, MR. RAMOS. YOU'RE
EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. RAMOS: SO I THINK THAT -- THAT IS WHERE WE SAW
THE RELEVANCE OF RAW DATA. WHY ANYBODY WOULD BE AGAINST HAVING RAW
DATA, FULL REPORTING SO THAT -- FULL REPORTING CAN ALSO EXONERATE POLICE
OFFICERS.
MR. LENTOL: CORRECT.
MR. RAMOS: IF -- IF WE HAD FULL REPORTING AND FINE
DETAILS ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. SUNSHINE IS THE BEST
DISINFECTANT FOR BOTH PROTECTING POLICE OFFICERS AND PROTECTING THE
PUBLIC.
MR. LENTOL: AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF WE'RE REALLY
INTERESTED IN IMPROVING THE POLICE OFFICER LOT IN -- IN -- IN OUR SOCIETY,
THAT WE WANT TO GET THIS INFORMATION EARLY SO THAT WE CAN EITHER CORRECT
IT OR TALK TO HIM. MAYBE GET HIM HELP IF HE NEEDS IT SO THAT WE -- WE'RE
NOT LOOKING TO ATTACK ANYBODY, BUT IF WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION WE CAN
START TO DEVELOP BETTER POLICING PRACTICES IN ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, AND
AT LEAST KNOW THE SIGNS OF TROUBLE WHERE THEY START TO EXIST.
MR. RAMOS: THANK YOU, MR. LENTOL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. EPSTEIN.
MR. EPSTEIN: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?
MR. LENTOL: YES, I WILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LENTOL YIELDS.
51
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. EPSTEIN: MR. LENTOL, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT
THE BROKEN WINDOWS POLICY WAS IN NEW YORK CITY?
MR. LENTOL: I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON BROKEN
WINDOWS, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT
IF THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN, THEN IT'S A SIGN THAT -- THAT CRIMES OF
LOWER-CLASS CRIMES LIKE THAT WILL BEGIN TO BREATHE INTO HIGHER CRIMES
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) SO THAT YOU'VE GOT TO CORRECT BROKEN WINDOWS SO THAT
YOU CAN HAVE BETTER POLICING TO CORRECT THE HIGHER CRIMES HAPPENING.
MR. EPSTEIN: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ABOUT THAT. AND -- AND SO IN THOSE TIMES, BROKEN WINDOWS COULD
BE PEOPLE GETTING ARRESTED FOR, LIKE, PEOPLE SPITTING ON THE STREET OR
CHEWING GUM OR THROWING GUM ON THE STREET. HAVE YOU HEARD OF THOSE
INSTANCES, MR. LENTOL?
MR. LENTOL: YES, I HAVE.
MR. EPSTEIN: AND SO WHY IS THAT INFORMATION
IMPORTANT TO COLLECT IF SOMEONE'S ARRESTED FOR SPITTING ON THE STREET?
WHY -- WHY DO YOU THINK THAT'S RELEVANT?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT, AS I TOLD
MR. RAMOS, FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. AND --
AND ALSO TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE NITPICKING IN ORDER TO
MAKE AN ARREST IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIND
PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTING CRIMES.
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU.
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
52
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO
APPLAUD THE SPONSOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS LEGISLATION AND LETTING US PASS
IT SO MANY TIMES. I REALLY HOPE WE GET IT THROUGH THIS YEAR. CLEARLY
THIS ISSUE WE'VE EXPERIENCED AS NEW YORKERS FOR DECADES DISPARATE
TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR THROUGH ARRESTS ON THESE LOW-LEVEL
OFFENSES HAS RESULTED IN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, BEING CONNECTED TO THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. RACE AND CLASS MATTER CRITICALLY IN THAT
INFORMATION. RACISM, AS WE KNOW, WHAT WE'VE SEEN THIS WEEK IN THE
UNITED STATES IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS WITH THE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD
FOR MINOR OFFENSES, WHO WE SEE ARE OUT SELLING CIGARETTES ON THE STREET,
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE IMPACT ON PEOPLE'S LIVES. AND SO COLLECTING
THIS DATA IS SUCH A CRITICAL PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO INFORM
US, AS NEW YORKERS, US, AS POLICYMAKERS.
SO I REALLY WANT TO MOVE THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD. I
ENCOURAGE ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WE NEED A BETTER SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T JUDGE PEOPLE ON THEIR
RACE AND THEIR CLASS. THAT DOESN'T JUDGE PEOPLE FOR WHERE THEY COME
FROM. THAT DOESN'T JUDGE PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY ARE WHICH IS A FAIR AND
EQUITABLE SYSTEM THAT TREATS PEOPLE FROM ALL DIFFERENT SORTS OF
BACKGROUNDS EQUALLY AND THE SAME TO ENSURE THEY HAVE AN EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY. NOW, EQUAL AND SEPARATE AREN'T THE SAME THING. WE NEED
TO ENSURE THAT OUR LAWS ARE FAIR. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT OUR LAWS ARE --
ARE TREATED FOR EVERYONE IN THE SAME WAY, AND I THINK THIS BILL GOES A
LONG WAY OF COLLECTING THAT DATA THAT WE'LL NEED TO USE AS WE MOVE
FORWARD AS WE REFORM OUR POLICING TECHNIQUES NOT JUST HERE IN NEW
53
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
YORK, BUT ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS
OUR POLICING SYSTEM, AS IT STANDS TODAY, DOES NOT WORK. THE
INFORMATION WILL HELP CHANGE THE SYSTEM SO WE WILL NOT HEAR THOSE
WORDS, "I CAN'T BREATHE" AGAIN.
THANK YOU. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT NO. 66. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY MEMBER
WISHING TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THEIR CONFERENCE POSITION IS
REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBER
PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
(PAUSE)
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE
REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL. IF
THERE'S SOME MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO VOTE YES, PLEASE CONTACT THE MINORITY OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WILL BE VOTING AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS
ONE. IF THERE ARE SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO DESIRE TO VOTE OTHERWISE,
54
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THEY SHOULD EITHER MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE CHAMBERS AND/OR CALL INTO THE
OFFICE AND WE WILL RECORD THEM AS SUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ALSO SO NOTED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. COLTON TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS IS A
BILL WHICH I THINK HAS VERY COMMENDABLE INTENTIONS, AND I CERTAINLY,
YOU KNOW, WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE A
BILL LIKE THIS. BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST IN TODAY'S TIMES, I AM
CONCERNED THAT THIS KIND OF A BILL MAY PLACE A TREMENDOUS BURDEN UPON
POLICE OFFICERS AND THE COURT SYSTEM. AND IT MAY EVEN RAISE ISSUES AND
CONCERNS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A POLICE OFFICER AND THE PERSON
THAT HE'S STOPPED, WHICH MAY CREATE CONFRONTATIONAL OR NEGATIVE
CONNOTATIONS. ALSO, I AM AFRAID THAT THE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT ABLE TO
ACCURATELY PROVIDE MUCH OF THE INFORMATION THAT THIS BILL IS REQUIRING,
AND THAT IS PROBLEMATICAL TO ME.
SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH A -- A
BETTER MEASURE TO DEVELOP THE METRICS THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO, TO
ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO. BUT I THINK THIS BILL
IS SO OVER-ENCOMPASSING AND INVOLVES SO MANY DIFFERENT COMPASS AND
REQUIREMENTS THAT I CANNOT VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THAT I
UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE WAY THE BILL IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, I MUST VOTE IN
THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. COLTON IN THE
NEGATIVE.
55
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. I -- I DO JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE REASON THAT THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION IS SO IMPORTANT IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL AND
BELIEVE THAT THE BROKEN WINDOW-TYPE POLICING, THE POLICING ON SMALL,
NONVIOLENT CRIMES THAT MAY BE A NUISANCE IN THE COMMUNITY BUT NOT
NECESSARILY WARRANT ARREST AND/OR DEATH BY AN OFFICER IS THE REASON WHY
YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS DATA. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE
SOME CONCERN THAT THIS MAY BE AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION FOR LOCAL COURTS TO KEEP. BUT IN ALL HONESTY, MOST LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS DON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES. THESE ISSUES ONLY HAPPEN WHEN
YOU HAVE OFFICERS WHO, QUITE HONESTLY, DECIDE TO STOP SOMEBODY
BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THEIR REGISTRATION STICKER MAY BE WRONG, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S NOT WRONG. I DOUBT THAT -- THAT -- THESE NUMBERS WILL BE
VERY LARGE AND VERY -- THEY'LL BE SMALL IN VERY LARGE COMMUNITIES. AND
SO I THINK THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESSURE ON THEIR
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY WORRY ABOUT THAT AS MUCH.
BUT THEY SHOULD WANT TO GET TO THE TRUTH. THEY SHOULD WANT TO GET --
AND FACTS ALWAYS WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH. FACTS WILL LEAD YOU TO THE
TRUTH. AND THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO COLLECT THEM CONCERNS ME,
BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME TRUTH THAT MAY BE A LITTLE SHATTERING. AND
SO I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.
I WANT TO REALLY COMMEND MR. LENTOL FOR SPONSORING
THIS LEGISLATION FOR A GOOD BIT OF TIME AROUND THIS CONFERENCE, AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
56
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RODRIGUEZ TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR
THIS LEGISLATION. YOU KNOW, ON THE SURFACE THIS SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A
TECHNICAL OR A TECHNOCRATIC BILL WHERE WE'RE JUST RECORDING DATA AND
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. BUT THAT -- THAT WOULDN'T BE FARTHER FROM THE
TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN MEASURE AND CREATE
POLICIES THAT MAKE SENSE AND THAT REALLY TREAT PEOPLE FAIRLY IS BY
RECORDING AND REPORTING THE DATA. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT
WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT PUTTING AS MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THE -- ON
THE ACTUAL POLICE -- POLICE OFFICERS DURING THAT REPORTING PROCESS. AND I
THINK ANECDOTALLY I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT A -- A PROGRAM THAT WAS
HELD IN -- IN -- IN MANHATTAN WHERE THEY WERE, YOU KNOW,
SELF-RECORDING INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY ABOUT AN -- AN ATI PROGRAM
AND A -- A -- A WEAPONS-RELATED ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION PROGRAM.
AND, YOU KNOW, FOR -- FOR FOLKS WHO ARE ARRESTED WHO ARE WHITE -
WHICH ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 3 PERCENT OF -- OF THE FOLKS THAT COMMIT
THOSE CRIMES, HOWEVER, 50 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENROLLED IN
THIS ATI PROGRAM WERE OF THAT 3 PERCENT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO SEE THAT KIND OF CORRELATION AMONGST DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND THE FOLKS
THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS ATI PROGRAM IF THEY DIDN'T RECORD IT. AND
THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT IT. BUT AS A RESULT OF THIS LEGISLATION, WE
CAN NOW BEGIN TO SEE TRENDS AND SEE WHETHER THE COURT SYSTEM IS
57
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ADMINISTERING FAIRLY DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, AND/OR IF WE HAVE TO CREATE
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT HELP SERVE AND -- AND -- AND -- AND GIVE PROPER
JUSTICE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS. BUT THAT COULD NOT BE DONE UNLESS WE
CREATED SOME SORT OF MAN -- MANDATORY REPORTING SYSTEM AND I'M -- I'M
PROUD THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT TODAY.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AS A RESULT, I'LL BE VOTING IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RODRIGUEZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WRIGHT.
MS. WRIGHT: HELLO. TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THANK
YOU, SPEAKER. THANK YOU FOR -- THAT YOU, SPONSOR, FOR INTRODUCING THIS
BILL WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO MONITOR THE ACTIVITIES OF POLICE AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT IS EXECUTED. TOO OFTEN WE
HAVE WATCHED AS NEW YORK STATE POLICE PRACTICE ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGIES THAT RESULTED IN OVER-POLICING AND CRIMINALIZATION OF RACE,
GENDER AND POVERTY. THIS BILL WILL HELP US TO KEEP RECORD OF IT, OF THE --
OF THE PRACTICES, AND IT WILL BURDEN ALL INVOLVED JUST ENOUGH SO THAT
THEY CAN NO LONGER IGNORE THE IMPACT THAT THEIR WORK HAS ON ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, NOR WILL BE ABLE TO OVERLOOK PATTERNS OF ABUSE. I
ANTICIPATE THE REPORTING, AND I EXPECT THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO COME UP
WITH BETTER POLICY SOLUTIONS TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES AS A RESULT OF IT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS BILL, AND I WILL BE
VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WRIGHT IN THE
58
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WALKER.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR
FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL BECAUSE DATA COLLECTION IS VERY IMPORTANT. FOR
SOME REASON, PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE ON PAPER THAT RACISM EXISTS WITHIN OUR
INSTITUTIONS. AND IT'S THIS TYPE OF DATA THAT LEADS US TO PROVE THAT VERY
POINT. WE'RE REQUIRED TO SHOW DISPARATE IMPACT IN MANY DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS, WHETHER IT BE FOR MWBE LEGISLATION OR OTHERWISE. AND SO
THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SHOW
THESE THINGS, PARTICULARLY AS WE'RE COMING UP WITH POLICIES.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD ABOUT THE OTHER DAY WAS
"COINS FOR COLLARS," AND THAT THESE SORT OF LOW-LEVEL MINISTERIAL ACTS
WHICH TAKE PLACE IN COMMUNITIES ACTUALLY HELP OUT A NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS AS IT RELATES TO OVERTIME PAY, FOR EXAMPLE. AND IT DOESN'T
HAPPEN IN MANY COMMUNITIES, BUT WE KNOW THAT IT HAPPENS IN
COMMUNITIES LIKE THE ONE THAT I REPRESENT. AND SO I NEED THIS DATA TO
SHOW THAT THIS TYPE OF OMNIPRESENCE POLICING THAT DOESN'T LEAD TO ANY
PRECISION POLICING TACTICS WHICH ACTUALLY LEADS TO CRIME REDUCTION IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, TO SHOW THAT IT'S A -- IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. IT'S A BURN
ON OUR RELATIONSHIPS. IT'S A BURN ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY AND THE POLICE. AND WE NEED THESE NUMBERS TO PROTECT NOT
JUST THE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT QUITE FRANKLY,
ALSO THE OFFICERS WHO ARE PATROLLING THOSE STREETS.
SO THE DATA IS VERY IMPORTANT. I APPRECIATE IT, I LOOK
59
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
FORWARD TO ITS PASSAGE AND I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU
COULD PLEASE RECORD MEMBER GUNTHER IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
(PAUSE)
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
RULES REPORT NO. 61, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A01531-B, RULES
REPORT NO. 61, RICHARDSON, HEASTIE, D'URSO, ASHBY, SAYEGH,
DESTEFANO, VANEL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, IN RELATION
TO REPORTING A NONEMERGENCY INCIDENT INVOLVING A MEMBER OF A
PROTECTED CLASS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED, MS. RICHARDSON.
MS. RICHARDSON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU
KNOW, THIS BILL WILL ESTABLISH A CIVIL RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS LAW WHEN A PERSON CALLS 9-1-1 OR OTHERWISE SUMMONS A POLICE
OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER WHEN THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE A CRIME IS
OCCURRING. THE CAUSE OF ACTION WOULD ARISE WHEN THE CALLER ACTED
BECAUSE OF A BELIEF OR PERCEPTION REGARDING THE RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL
60
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, GENDER, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, AGE, DISABILITY OR
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE PERSON. THIS BILL ADDRESSES INSTANCES WHEN A
PERSON IS MOTIVATED BY BIAS, MAKES A FALSE REPORT OR A CRIME. AS WE ALL
KNOW, VERY RECENTLY AND HISTORICALLY AT THIS POINT THERE HAS BEEN A
NUMBER OF DISTRESSING (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CALLS TO 9-1-1 AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS ENGAGING IN VERY ORDINARY LEGAL ACTIVITY.
HOWEVER, THESE CALLERS, PERSONAL BIASES WITH OTHER PEOPLE, HAS BEEN
THE BASIS FOR MANY OF THOSE CALLS AND NOT FOR ANY PARTICULAR THREAT THAT,
YOU KNOW, AN INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE PRESENTED TO THEM. AND SO THIS BILL
SEEKS TO CURE THIS INJUSTICE BY PROVIDING THESE WRONGED INDIVIDUALS
WITH A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHICH WE HOPE THEY WILL TAKE, TO PREVENT THESE
SHAMEFUL ACTS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE. 9-1-1 IS FOR
EMERGENCIES ONLY, NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE BIASED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. RICHARDSON: ABSOLUTELY, MR. GOODELL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. -- MS.
RICHARDSON YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MS. RICHARDSON. AS
YOU KNOW, SECTION 240.50 OF THE PENAL LAW ALREADY MAKES FALSE
REPORTING OF AN INCIDENT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, RIGHT?
MS. RICHARDSON: YES, IT DOES, MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: AND THAT APPLIES TO ANYONE WHO
61
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MAKES A FALSE OR BASELESS REPORT OR WARNING OF A CRIME IN WHICH IT'S NOT
LIKELY THAT THERE'D BE ONE, OR REPORTS BY (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ACTION TO ANY
EMERGENCY SERVICES A DANGER TO THE LIFE OR PROPERTY IF IT'S BASELESS OR
FALSE, GRATUITOUSLY REPORTS TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THE ALLEGED
OCCURRENCE OF ANY OFFENSE OR INCIDENT WHICH DID NOT, IN FACT, OCCUR.
REPORTS BY WORD OR ACTION AN ALLEGED OCCURRENCE OR CONDITION OF CHILD
ABUSE. AND THE LIST IS FAIRLY EXTENSIVE. SO MY -- MY QUESTION IS, SINCE
WE ALREADY HAVE A BROAD CRIMINAL PROVISION RELATING TO FALSE REPORTING,
WHY DO WE NEED THIS SECTION?
MS. RICHARDSON: WELL, MR. GOODELL, I'M GLAD
THAT YOU LAID THAT EXTENSIVE LIST OUT. AND AS WE KNOW, IT IS A
MISDEMEANOR, CLASS A. BUT, MR. GOODELL, WHAT THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION SEEKS TO DO IS TO ADD A CIVIL COMPONENT SO THAT IF SOMEONE
UNJUSTLY CALLS 9-1-1 ON YOU FOR SIMPLY EXISTING IN YOUR CURRENT BEING,
YOU NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THAT PERSON IN A COURT
OF LAW. AND I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, MR. GOODELL, WHILE WE DO HAVE
THAT LAW ON THE BOOKS HERE, WE HAVE SEEN IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, MOST
NOTABLY AND RECENTLY JUST HERE IN CENTRAL PARK WITH CENTRAL PARK AMY
CALLING 9-1-1 ON AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAN SIMPLY BECAUSE HE ASKED
HER TO PUT THE LEASH ON HER DOG. AND YOU KNOW, MR. GOODELL, GOOD
THING FOR TECHNOLOGY - WHICH IS IN OTHER LEGISLATION WE'LL TAKE UP HERE
TODAY - THAT IT WAS RECORDED THAT EVIDENTLY SHE WAS JUST FALSELY CALLING
9-1-1 ON HIM. BUT ALTHOUGH THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR, SHE WASN'T
ARRESTED. BUT NOW WITH THIS LAW, THIS MAN WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE
ACTION AGAINST HER IN A COURT OF LAW, RIGHTFULLY SO.
62
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. GOODELL: BUT USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, IF IT'S
A FALSE AND BASELESS ALLEGATION THAT FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CURRENT
PENAL LAW, ISN'T -- ISN'T A BETTER APPROACH TO ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAW? I
MEAN, WOULDN'T THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUE? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR COMPLAINT
IS THAT THE CURRENT LAW WASN'T -- WASN'T ENFORCED. IT IS AN ENFORCEMENT
ISSUE?
MS. RICHARDSON: MR. GOODELL, IT'S A LOT OF ISSUES
COMBINED IN ONE. AND WHAT WE DO HERE IN THIS HOUSE, AS YOU KNOW, IS
THAT WE STRENGTHEN LAWS SO THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO BE EXERCISED IN MORE
THAN ONE WAY, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WILL DO.
MR. GOODELL: OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, ALL OF US
ARE -- ARE OFFENDED WHEN THERE'S A FALSE CLAIM, PARTICULARLY IF THE FALSE
CLAIM IS BASED ON A PROTECTED CATEGORY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE
BALANCE THAT AGAINST THE DESIRE TO HAVE AN ACTIVE AND ENGAGED PUBLIC
HELPING LAW ENFORCEMENT SOLVE CRIMES. AND SO AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC
POLICY, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THOSE WITH
TIPS TO CALL TIP LINES TO HELP SOLVE CRIMES. WOULDN'T A CIVIL LIABILITY
PROVISION HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON OUR DESIRE TO HAVE CITIZENS HELPING
SOLVE CRIMES BY CALLING IN TIPS?
MS. RICHARDSON: ACTUALLY, MR. GOODELL, IT
WOULD NOT. BECAUSE WE ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO JUSTLY BELIEVES, WHO IS
OF REASONABLE SOUND MIND AND JUDGMENT, TO CALL 9-1-1 IF THEY FEEL THAT
THERE IS A REAL THREAT OCCURRING AND TO ELEVATE THEIR VOICE PROTECTIVELY
THROUGH TIP LINES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
ESTABLISH WITH THIS BILL, MR. GOODELL, IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T ABUSE THAT
63
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
EMERGENCY SYSTEM, AS WE ARE SEEING IT RAMPANT RIGHT HERE IN NEW YORK
STATE. AND SO LET'S BE HONEST, MR. GOODELL. IF THERE WAS A REAL THREAT
OF DANGER TO YOU PRESENTED, IN THAT MOMENT WHEN YOU PICK UP THE
PHONE TO CALL 9-1-1 YOU ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT BEING SUED. YOU ARE
THINKING ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICES REACHING YOU IN A TIMELY FASHION SO
THAT YOU CAN GET THE HELP THAT YOU WERE CALLING FOR. SO IF YOU WERE
ACTUALLY THINKING TWICE, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING GOING ON WITH YOUR
THOUGHT PROCESS.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT -- THAT
CONCERN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'VE ALL SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S A
VIDEO OF AN ALLEGED ROBBERY, FOR EXAMPLE, OR A POLICE SKETCH. AND
THEY'RE RARELY HIGH-QUALITY. YET, IF THAT PERSON FELT WITHIN A PROTECTED
CATEGORY, THE ALLEGED DEFENDANT, WOULDN'T WE BE, UNDER THIS LAW,
SUBJECTING PEOPLE WHO INNOCENTLY BUT MISTAKENLY CALLED THE POLICE
HOTLINE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I SAW SOMEONE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT
INDIVIDUAL?
MS. RICHARDSON: MR. GOODELL, THE LANGUAGE IN
THE LAW SAYS WITHOUT REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED A
CRIME. SO FOR THE SCENARIO IN WHICH YOU ARE USING HERE, THAT MEANS
THAT THE PERSON REASONABLY SUSPECTED. AND SO IF THIS WAS A CASE
BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING CIVIL PENALTIES HERE, THE JUDGE WOULD MAKE THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE PERSON WAS JUST IN THEIR ACTION OF MAKING THE
CALL.
MR. GOODELL: AND I APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION.
IT HELPS DEFINE WHAT'S MEANT BY THIS BILL, WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL AS PART
64
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. I WOULD NOTE, THOUGH, THAT THIS BILL WOULD
ALSO PROVIDE CIVIL LIABILITY TO A PERSON WHO CALLS 9-1-1 IF THEY LACK
REASON TO SUSPECT AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PERSON OR PROPERTY. IMMINENT
THREAT MEANS IMMEDIATE, RIGHT? SO COULD A PERSON -- IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE WORD "IMMINENT" REALLY RESTRICTS THE SCOPE OF THE EXCEPTION. I
MEAN, IF -- IF THERE'S A LEGITIMATE THREAT, EVEN IF IT'S NOT IMMINENT,
SHOULDN'T THE INDIVIDUAL BE PROTECTED FROM ANY CIVIL LIABILITY?
MS. RICHARDSON: WHILE I DO APPRECIATE YOUR
POTENTIAL DESCRIPTIONS, MR. GOODELL, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR. WE ARE FACING
A SEVERE PROBLEM HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THE IMMINENT THREAT
OF A PERSON STANDING BY A CAR WITH A CROWBAR AND YOU SUSPECT THAT A
CRIME IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK IN THE CAR
OR YOU SEE THEM, THEN YOU SHOULD JUSTLY CALL 9-1-1. BUT TO SEE A PERSON
OF COLOR OR A PERSON OF, YOU KNOW, ANY CULTURAL BACKGROUND THAT YOU SO
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, SO WALKING THEIR DOG OR STANDING BY THE CAR AND
THEN YOU JUST CALL 9-1-1 ON THEM JUSTLY, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO
BE TOLERATING HERE IN NEW YORK, AND NOW WHILE WE'RE ADDING THE CIVIL
LIABILITIES TO IT. AND SO WHILE I SEE WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO HERE, TO
SAY THAT INDIVIDUALS WOULD NOT CALL 9-1-1 BECAUSE THEY WILL BE DETERRED
BY THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I SUBMIT TO YOU AGAIN, WE ACTUALLY HOLD
PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, KEEP THEM HONEST. AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF NEW
YORKERS ARE NOT DOING THIS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE FEW BAD
ACTORS, JUST AS WE SHOULD.
MR. GOODELL: IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THIS STANDARD,
WHICH IS THAT A PERSON LACKS A REASON TO SUSPECT, IS IN SOME WAYS A
65
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
TIGHTER STANDARD, IF YOU WILL, THAN THE CRIMINAL PROVISION WHICH REFERS
TO A PERSON MAKING A STATEMENT THAT THEY KNOW IS FALSE OR BASELESS? IN
OTHER WORDS, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PERSON COULD HAVE CIVIL LIABILITY EVEN
THOUGH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED IN ANY WAY THE FALSE REPORTING
STATUTE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE QUITE BROAD?
MS. RICHARDSON: RE-ASK THAT QUESTION, MR.
GOODELL. I WAS BUSY LOOKING AT YOU SMILING. ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.
MR. GOODELL: SO THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU'RE
INNOCENT OF A CHARGE OF FALSE REPORTING, DOES THAT ALSO THEN MEAN THAT
YOU'RE NOT CIVILLY LIABLE?
MS. RICHARDSON: YES.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S VERY
HELPFUL.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR
CLARIFYING THE INTENT OF THIS BILL. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE ON ONE HAND
WE MOST ASSUREDLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO CALL
THE POLICE WITH TIPS. AND, IN FACT, MANY, MANY OF OUR MOST SERIOUS
CRIMES HAVE BEEN SOLVED BY TIPS FROM THE PUBLIC WHO PICKED UP THE
PHONE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, I SAW A CAR THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, AND THE POLICE WERE THEN ABLE TO TRACK THAT
VEHICLE DOWN AND LOCATE SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND
KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. I MEAN, THE EXAMPLES ARE JUST LEGEND OF TIPS FROM
66
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE PUBLIC THAT HELP THE POLICE SOLVE HORRIFIC CRIMES. NOW, WHEN YOU
ASK THE PUBLIC TO HELP YOU, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE KNOW THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET, HOPEFULLY, A LOT OF RESPONSES. AND SOMETIMES IT'S A REAL
CHALLENGE FOR THE POLICE TO SIFT THROUGH ALL THE TIPS TO FIND THE ONES THAT
ARE HELPFUL IN SOLVING. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE UNDERSTAND
WHEN THERE'S A GRUESOME CRIME, A HORRIFIC MURDER, OR A KIDNAP OR A
RAPE, THAT TYPICALLY THE POLICE WILL INTERVIEW A LOT OF POTENTIAL SUSPECTS
AS THEY DO THEIR JOB OF NARROWING IT DOWN TO THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR. WE
NEED TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T MAKE INDIVIDUALS WHO CALL
WITH A TIP LIABLE FOR A LAWSUIT IF THE POLICE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT TIP THEN
INTERVIEW SOMEONE WHO TURNS OUT NOT TO BE GUILTY OF A CRIME. SO WE
NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT IMPOSING CIVIL LIABILITY ON SPEECH.
NOW, THIS BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE SPEECH BE
MALICIOUS OR KNOWINGLY FALSE OR BASELESS. AND IF IT SAID THAT IF A
PERSON CALLS THE POLICE AND IT IS BASELESS AND IT IS KNOWINGLY FALSE, OR IF
IT WAS MALICIOUS WITH NO FOUNDATION AND FACT, THEY WOULD BE CIVILLY
LIABLE. NOW, FORTUNATELY, MY COLLEAGUE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WHILE THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IT INTEGRATE WITH SECTION
240.50 OF THE PENAL LAW, SHE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF YOU ARE NOT GUILTY
UNDER THE PENAL LAW YOU WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL LIABILITY. AND I
THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS LANGUAGE SHOULD BE
TIGHTENED, IN MY OPINION, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CIVIL LIABILITY ONLY
OCCURS IF YOU KNOW THE STATEMENT IS FALSE, BASELESS OR IS MADE
MALICIOUSLY OR INTENTIONALLY. AND WITHOUT THAT CLARIFICATION AND THAT
NARROWING OF THIS LANGUAGE, WE RUN THE RISK THAT WE WILL CHILL THE VERY
67
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE WE RELY ON FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND CREATE
POTENTIAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
SO AGAIN, I -- I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS
AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT NO. 61. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL. ANY MEMBER
WISHING TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE
MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MS. RICHARDSON TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. RICHARDSON: THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR.
SPEAKER. TODAY WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION TO
INDIVIDUALS' RIGHT TO EXIST. AND WE ARE HERE TODAY ADDING CIVIL
LIABILITIES TO THE FALSE CALLS OF 9-1-1. AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
ARE JUST PICKING OUT OF THE SKY, MR. SPEAKER. WE HAVE A LOT OF
PROBLEMS HAPPENING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED,
JUST LAST WEEK AMY COOPER CALLED THE 9-1-1 AUTHORITIES ON A YOUNG
MAN IN CENTRAL PARK, AND GIVEN THE HISTORY OF CENTRAL PARK AND THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT HAPPENING COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A VERY
NEGATIVE OUTCOME FOR THAT GENTLEMAN. THANK GOD FOR TECHNOLOGY. BUT
MR. SPEAKER, SHE ISN'T THE ONLY ONE. I MEAN, WE HAVE PERMIT PATTY IN
2018 WHERE A WOMAN CALLED THE COPS ON A LITTLE AFRICAN-AMERICAN GIRL
68
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
FOR JUST SELLING SOME WATER IN THE PARK. OR BARBECUE BECKY IN 2018 AS
WELL, WHO CALLED THE COPS ON INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE AFRICAN-AMERICAN
JUST BARBECUING. OR CORNER STORE CAROLINE RIGHT IN FLATBUSH,
BROOKLYN, WHERE THIS CAUCASIAN WOMAN SUGGESTED THAT A LITTLE YOUNG
BOY, LOOKING JUST LIKE MY SON, TOUCHED HER BEHIND AND WHEN WE ROLLED
BACK THE VIDEO SHE CALLED 9-1-1 ON AND HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING TO HER
AT ALL. OR KEY FOB KELLY WHO CALLED 9-1-1 ON AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN
MAN BECAUSE HE WAS VISITING HIS FRIEND AND SHE THOUGHT THAT HE
SHOULDN'T BE IN THAT LUXURY BUILDING, AS THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE DIVERSITY
IN OUR FRIENDS. BUT WHAT ABOUT STARBUCKS SARAH, MR. SPEAKER? THE
WHITE WOMAN THAT CALLED 9-1-1 ON AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAN AND HIS
FRIEND BECAUSE THEY WERE WAITING -- THEY WERE WAITING FOR THEIR OTHER
FRIEND TO COME BEFORE THEY ORDERED SO THEY COULD ALL ORDER TOGETHER. I
MEAN, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE ALL DO THAT? BUT 9-1-1 WAS CALLED ON
THEM FOR SIMPLY EXISTING.
AND SO TODAY WE ADD CIVIL LIBERTIES. WE SAY, WE ARE
HOLDING YOU ACCOUNTABLE, AND I THANK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR VOTING
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AS WELL AS I.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. RICHARDSON IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WRIGHT.
MS. WRIGHT: TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. AND THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR FOR PRESENTING THIS BILL. I'M SO
HAPPY THAT OUR COLLEAGUES IDENTIFIED SOME OF THE GLARING
INCONSISTENCIES OF ENFORCEMENT DURING THE DEBATE. YES, IT IS CRIMINAL
69
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
TO DELIBERATELY CALL 9-1-1. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT WHENEVER THE 9-1-1
SYSTEM IS WEAPONIZED AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IT IS NOT ENFORCED. IT IS
CRIMINAL, IT IS ILLEGAL, BUT IT IS NOT ENFORCED. SO WE ARE CREATING FOR THE
PEOPLE -- SO WE ARE CREATING A REMEDY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FALSELY
ACCUSED BY THOSE WHO INTEND TO ABUSE OUR 9-1-1 REPORTING SYSTEM. IN
THIS CASE WHERE OUR POLICING HAS FAILED US, WE WILL USE OUR COURTS. WE
CAN NO LONGER TOLERATE THE FLAGRANT ABUSE OF OUR MUNICIPAL REPORTING
SYSTEMS TO INFLICT BIAS-BASED HARM UPON OUR NEIGHBORS. CIVIL LIABILITY
FOR KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY FILING FALSE CLAIMS IS THE BARE MINIMUM
THAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF OUR INNOCENT NEIGHBORS.
I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WRIGHT IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. DICKENS.
MS. DICKENS: MR. SPEAKER?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YES, MA'AM, WE HEAR
YOU.
MS. DICKENS: THANK YOU. PEOPLE OF COLOR HAS
BEEN FORCED AND FACED STRUCTURAL RACISM THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS
COUNTRY AND THIS STATE. I COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS LEGISLATION
BECAUSE ALL TOO OFTEN, 9-1-1 HAS BEEN ABUSED, NOT BECAUSE OF AN
EMERGENCY, AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN 9-1-1 WAS CREATED, BUT MERELY
BECAUSE OF FEAR OF SKIN COLOR WHEN APPROACHED BY A PERSON OF COLOR OR
IN THE VIEW OF A PERSON OF COLOR OR IN THE PROXIMITY OF A PERSON OF
COLOR. THIS LEGISLATION WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO STOP AND THINK, BECAUSE
70
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
NOW THERE -- THERE WILL BE TEETH ADHERED TO THE LEGISLATION, AND IT CAN
NOW BE ENFORCED THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO CALL 9-1-1 BASED UPON ANYTHING
OTHER THAN AN EMERGENCY.
I VOTE YES AND I AM IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AND THANK
YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. DICKENS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WALKER.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THANK
YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THERE WAS A -- A SONG THAT I REMEMBER GROWING UP
TO WHERE IT WOULD SAY, GET UP, GET, GET, GET DOWN. 9-1-1 IS A JOKE IN
YOUR TOWN. AND THAT SONG WAS ABOUT THE DELAYED RESPONSES TO
EMERGENCIES IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AND WHEN WE HAVE ACTS LIKE
CENTRAL PARK AMY TAKE PLACE, IT FURTHERS THE DELAYS GETTING TO
EMERGENCY NEEDS WITHIN COMMUNITIES ACROSS OUR STATE. SO WE ARE
TAKING THE JOKE OUT OF 9-1-1, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE INTENDED
IT FOR. 9-1-1 IS INTENDED TO BE A SHIELD TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES IN
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. BUT SHE, INSTEAD, AND OTHERS LIKE HER USE IT AS A
SWORD TO ACT OUT THEIR IMPLICIT BIASES AGAINST BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE
ACROSS OUR COUNTRY AND ACROSS OUR STATE. AND TODAY WE'RE SAYING THAT
THERE WILL BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY TO THOSE ACTIONS. THAT YOU WILL DO
THIS NOW WITH A FEAR OF RETRIBUTION IN TERMS OF CIVIL LIABILITY FOR MAKING
FALSE CLAIMS.
SO I, TOO, WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS
INTRODUCTION, AND LIKEWISE VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR.
71
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. MOSLEY.
MR. MOSLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR THIS
PIECE OF CRITICAL LEGISLATION. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, SO MANY MEN AND
WOMEN OF COLOR HAVE HAD 9-1-1 BEING USED AS A -- A WEAPON TO
CRIMINALIZE OR FURTHER CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE OF COLOR, PARTICULARLY IN NEW
YORK CITY. AND UNFORTUNATELY WE SAW THIS AGAIN WITH ANOTHER CITY
RESIDENT WHO WISHED TO USE 9-1-1 AS A TOOL TO FURTHER DECRIMINALIZE AND
FURTHER ENLIGHTEN THE NOTION THAT BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE, FOR MERELY
LOOKING THE WAY THEY'RE LOOKING, CAN BE DE -- CAN BE CRIMINALIZED OFF A
-- A MINOR PHONE CALL TO EMERGENCY PERSONNEL. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF A LONG TIME AGO,
BUT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF IT NOW TODAY.
AND I WANT TO APPLAUD THE SPONSOR AND I WANT TO
APPLAUD THE SPEAKER AND THE MAJORITY LEADER FOR HAVING THIS BILL BE A
PART OF THIS REFORM PACKAGE GOING FORWARD, AND IT IS MY HONOR TO BE
VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RAMOS.
MR. RAMOS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL
GIVES PEOPLE ANOTHER TOOL TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION OF FALSE
72
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
POLICE CALLS. WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOW PEOPLE MAKE PHONE
CALLS AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR JUST AS A WAY TO USE THE POLICE AS THEIR
PERSONAL RACE SOLDIERS. THEY KNOW THAT WHEN THE POLICE COME THERE --
THEY'RE SO USED TO THE POLICE COMING THERE AND THINGS NOT WORKING OUT
WELL FOR THE PERSON OF COLOR, THAT THIS HAS BECOME A COMMON PRACTICE.
AND WE SAW IN THIS DEBATE HOW IT WAS SAID, WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE
FALSELY REPORTING IS A CRIME. IT'S ALREADY A CRIME. WHY DO WE NEED
THIS? WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIDEO OF CENTRAL PARK AMY, HOW DID IT
WORK OUT THERE? WAS SHE ARRESTED? THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PEOPLE,
THE RACISTS WHO ARE MAKING THOSE CALLS AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE NOT
GETTING ARRESTED. SO WE HAVE TAKEN IT INTO OUR OWN HANDS TODAY IN THE
ASSEMBLY, AND GIVING PEOPLE OF COLOR ANOTHER TOOL THAT IF IT'S NOT --
THEY DON'T GET JUSTICE THROUGH THE -- THE -- THEIR POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY
CAN NOW GO AFTER THE PERSON CIVILLY.
SO I COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS BILL, AND I PROUDLY
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAMOS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. ORTIZ.
MR. ORTIZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. CAN YOU HEAR
ME?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YES, WE CAN.
MR. ORTIZ: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO START TO SAY THAT IN
2018 I INTRODUCED THE SAME PIECE OF LEGISLATION, MANDATING THAT THIS
73
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SHOULD BE A HATE CRIME, NOT A CIVIL CRIME. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT MANY PHONE CALLS ON 9-1-1, FALSE REPORTING SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS A HATE CRIME AND IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE
ACCEPTABLE. IT'S RACISM. IT'S BIGOTRY. AND WE HAVE SEEN YEAR AFTER YEAR
AFTER YEAR. IN 2018 WHEN I INTRODUCED THE FIRST BILL IT WAS BASED ON THE
HISTORY -- ON A STORY THAT CAME FROM PHILADELPHIA AND MINNESOTA. TWO
BLACK MEN WAS HAVING COFFEE AT -- AT A STARBUCKS, AND ONE OF THEM WAS
-- ONE WHITE PERSON CALLED THE POLICE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY
HAD A KNIFE, AND WHAT THEY HAD WAS A PEN.
SO THIS IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS ACTION THAT THEY TAKE BY
FALSELY REPORTING, AND I AM VERY PROUD TO VOTE ON THIS BILL TODAY. BUT I
HOPE THAT THE DAY WILL COME WHEN WE REALLY STEP TO THE PLATE AND WE
MAKE THIS A HATE CRIME. THAT PEOPLE WHO WENT TO PICK UP THE PHONE
AND DIAL 9-1-1 TO MAKE THE FALSE ACCUSATION, THEY WILL HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THIS TWICE OR THREE TIMES. THIS IS A LONG OVERDUE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. I'M VERY PROUD TO BE PUSHING THIS BILL FOR A LONG TIME, AND
I'M VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY AND THE PACKAGE THAT IS
COMING AHEAD OF US.
MR. SPEAKER, TODAY IS A HISTORICAL MOMENT.
TOMORROW WILL BE BRIGHTER AND THE FUTURE OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN AND
CHILDREN WILL BE BETTER PROTECTED BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
THEREFORE, MR. SPEAKER, I WILL BE VOTING ON THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ORTIZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
74
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION. IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. MALCOLM X ONCE SAID THE -- HISTORY MOST REWARDS
OUR RESEARCH. AND IT'S SO ACCURATE. WE CAN GO BACK TO 1955 WHEN
MRS. BRYANT SUGGESTED THAT EMMETT TILL, A 14-YEAR-OLD KID SAID
SOMETHING TO HER OR WHISTLED TO HER. HER HUSBAND IMMEDIATELY WENT
HOME, DRUG HIM OUT OF HIS BED AND KILLED HIM. AND IF NOT FOR HIS
MOTHER WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW BADLY THEY HURT THIS YOUNG MAN.
TWENTY, 30 YEARS LATER, A YOUNG WOMAN PUSHES HER TWO SONS IN A CAR
INTO THE WATER. WHAT DOES SHE SAY? SHE SAID IT WAS A BLACK MAN WHO
DID IT. THAT WASN'T TRUE. SHE HAD SOME MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, BUT SHE
WEAPONIZED HER WHITENESS TO DO THAT. HERE WE ARE IN 2020, AND IT'S
STILL HAPPENING. MR. SPEAKER, SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN. SOMETHING
HAS TO STOP PEOPLE FROM USING THEIR RACE AS A WEAPON AGAINST BLACK
MEN.
AND SO I COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS LEGISLATION,
AND IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT IT'S HELD UP AS HIGH AS IT CAN BE IN
MAKING SURE THAT OFFICERS, THE FBI, EVERY INTELLIGENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY THAT WE HAVE IN AMERICA, WILL BEGIN CHALLENGING PEOPLE FOR
USING THEIR ETHNICITY AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE AS A WEAPON.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I AM SUPER PROUD TO VOTE IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS LEGISLATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
75
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THERE HAVE BEEN AN ENDLESS SERIES
OF SHOCKING VIDEOS AND INSTANCES OF WHITE PEOPLE INEXPLICABLY BEING
FRIGHTENED OR SEEMINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE, THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF BLACK PEOPLE IN THEIR SPACE. AND USING 9-1-1 AS A WEAPON
TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE AND DIVERTING POLICE FROM WHAT MIGHT, IN FACT, BE A
SERIOUS SITUATION IS INEXCUSABLE. THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
AND THE PACKAGE BEFORE US IS A START IN OUR ATTEMPT TO REBALANCE,
REBALANCE SOCIETY, WHICH CLEARLY, CLEARLY NEEDS SERIOUS ADJUSTMENTS.
AND I APPLAUD ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE CARRYING THESE MEASURES,
AND I AM PARTICULARLY PROUD OF THIS BECAUSE IT IS READILY AT HAND.
EVERYBODY HAS A CELL PHONE. EVERYBODY CAN CALL 9-1-1. AND THEY
HAVE BEEN DOING IT IN THE MOST PERNICIOUS AND RACIST AND VICIOUS
SITUATIONS, WHEN PEOPLE ARE JUST LIVING THEIR LIVES. THAT'S ALL PEOPLE
WANT TO DO. THEY WANT TO LIVE THEIR LIVES, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE STEPS TO
ENSURE THAT THEY CAN, IN FACT, LIVE THEIR LIVES AND NOT BE UNJUSTLY
ACCUSED.
I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND PROUDLY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. THE FOLLOWING
REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL: MR. GIGLIO, MR.
MCDONOUGH, MR. ASHBY, MR. BARCLAY, MR. BLANKENBUSH, MR. BYRNE,
76
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MS. BYRNES, MR. DESTEFANO, MR. DIPIETRO, MR. FITZPATRICK, MR. FRIEND,
MR. HAWLEY, MR. KOLB, MS. MALLIOTAKIS, MR. MANKTELOW, MR. SALKA,
MR. TAGUE, MR. MILLER, MR. SMITH, AND MR. LALOR.
THANK YOU, SIR. ALSO MR. NORRIS. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU
COULD PLEASE RECORD MEMBER BUTTENSCHON AND MEMBER SAYEGH IN THE
NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
AND MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: ALSO PLEASE RECORD MR. STEC IN THE
NEGATIVE. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU. MR.
SPEAKER, IF WE COULD NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE MAIN CALENDAR AND
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CALENDAR NO. 176, IT'S ON PAGE -- AND GO TO PAGE
30 AND WE'LL TAKE UP A BILL THAT'S SPONSORED BY MS. BICHOTTE. AND
FOLLOWING THAT, MR. SPEAKER, WE'LL BE GOING TO CALENDAR NO. 70, 7-0,
THAT ONE'S ON PAGE 15 AND THAT ONE IS SPONSORED BY MR. PERRY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE ARE NOW ON "A"
77
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
CALENDAR, WHICH IS THE MAIN CALENDAR. PAGE 30, CALENDAR NO. 176,
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04615-A, CALENDAR
NO. 176, BICHOTTE, HEASTIE, GANTT, MOSLEY, GOTTFRIED, BLAKE, WALKER,
COOK, PERRY, PRETLOW, ORTIZ, DINOWITZ, LIFTON, PEOPLES-STOKES, HEVESI,
L. ROSENTHAL, REYES, ZEBROWSKI, BARRETT, WRIGHT, FERNANDEZ, SIMON,
SIMOTAS, DICKENS, ROZIC, D'URSO, BARNWELL, O'DONNELL, EPSTEIN,
COLTON, JAFFEE, RICHARDSON, HUNTER, RODRIGUEZ, SEAWRIGHT, GLICK,
WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, VANEL, OTIS, NIOU. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE
LAW, IN RELATION TO ETHNIC OR RACIAL PROFILING.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED, MS. BICHOTTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AN
EXPLANATION ON THIS BILL: RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING OCCURS WHEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TARGET PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR
BEHAVIOR, BUT RATHER ON THE BASIS OF -- OF PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, SUCH
AS RACE, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR RELIGION. RACIAL PROFILING IS AN
UNJUST AND INEFFECTIVE METHOD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT MAKES US LESS
SAFE AND SECURE, NOT MORE SO.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING IS NONE -- NONETHELESS
PERVASIVE. IT HAS BEEN USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES AT THE
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. UNDER THIS BILL, LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, THAT IS STATE AND LOCAL POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS, WOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM USING RACIAL OR ETHNIC PROFILING WHILE ENGAGING IN THEIR
LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES. THIS INCLUDES WHEN OFFICERS CONDUCT TRAFFIC
78
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
STOPS, PEDESTRIAN STOPS, INTERVIEWS, ASK QUESTIONS, CONDUCT
INVESTIGATIONS, FRISK, PAT DOWNS, SEARCHES OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROPERTY,
DATA COLLECTION AND INSPECTION. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE WHEN AN OFFICER
ACTS ON -- ON TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION, REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE
SUSPICION TO INVESTIGATE A SPECIFIC CRIMINAL EVENT.
THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW ANY VICTIM OF RACIAL OR ETHNIC
PROFILING OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES OR FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO STOP THE AGENCY'S IMPROPER ACTIONS. CURRENT STATE
LAW DOES NOT, I REPEAT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN INDIVIDUAL CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR ACTS OF RACIAL PROFILING. ALSO NOTE THAT THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CREATE A FORUM FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO USE TO COMPILE DATA ABOUT INVESTIGATIVE
ENCOUNTERS AND TRAFFIC STOPS WITH CIVILIANS, AND A FIELD INTERROGATION
REPORT MAY BE FILLED OUT. PERTINENT DATA ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT,
WHETHER IT DETERMINES A REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION IS NOT ON THE
FORM. SO, THE INFORMATION RECORDED WOULD INCLUDE SUCH THINGS LIKE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE STOPPED, THE RACE, THE ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR
THE RELIGION OF SUCH PERSONS, WHETHER THE PERSON WAS SEARCHED OR
FRISKED, WHETHER THE STOP RESULTED IN AN ARREST OR A CITATION, AND THE
LENGTH OF THE STOP -- AND THE LENGTH OF THE STOP.
AGAIN, JUST KNOW THAT THIS IS THE SAME TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT SOME POLICE DEPARTMENTS ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO --
TO RECORD. THIS -- SO THIS WOULD NOT IMPEDE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
IN THEIR REGULAR DUTIES; IN FACT, IT PROTECTS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
AGAINST ANY LAWSUIT IF HE HAS LEGITIMATE REASONS THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO
79
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE INVESTIGATION OF A SPECIFIC CRIME EVENT. I'LL STOP THERE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
MS. BICHOTTE: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BICHOTTE YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MS. BICHOTTE, I
APPRECIATE IT.
NOW, I'M CORRECT, AREN'T I, THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW THE
STOPPING, QUESTIONING, FRISKING OR SEARCHING OF AN INDIVIDUAL BY A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BASED SOLELY ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S ACTS WOULD
PRECEDE RACIAL OR ETHNIC STATUS WITHOUT A REASONABLE INDIVIDUALIZED
SUSPICION OR OTHER LAWFUL CAUSE TO JUSTIFY THE SEARCH IS ALREADY
PROHIBITED, RIGHT?
MS. BICHOTTE: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND IT'S PROHIBITED NOT ONLY - I LOVE
THIS - NOT ONLY BY STATUTE, BUT IT'S ALSO PROHIBITED UNDER BOTH THE FEDERAL
AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
MS. BICHOTTE: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: I LOVE IT WHEN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE
ON THE FLOOR OF THE LEGISLATURE. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, BUT -- CERTAINLY
ARTICLE I, SECTION 12 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS
IT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THESE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS
80
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AGAINST RACIAL PROFILING, THERE ARE ALSO ALREADY CIVIL REMEDIES ON BOTH
THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE LEVEL, RIGHT? YOU CAN BRING AN -- A 1983
ACTION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN FEDERAL COURT IF YOU BELIEVE YOU'VE BEEN THE
VICTIM OF RACIAL PROFILING BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, CORRECT?
MS. BICHOTTE: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: AND YOU CAN ALSO BRING AN ACTION,
CIVIL ACTION, PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IF YOU
WERE THE VICTIM OF ALLEGED RACIAL PROFILING, CORRECT?
MS. BICHOTTE: CORRECT, BUT NOT A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION.
MR. GOODELL: BUT CERTAINLY THE 1983 IS THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, RIGHT, THE FEDERAL 1983 ACTION IS A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, CORRECT?
MS. BICHOTTE: IT'S NOT, IN FACT. IT HASN'T BEEN -- IT
HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWED IN OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE
FOLLOWED IN THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, IT'S A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION AND
IT'S NOT THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY THAT GOVERNS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A
FEDERAL LAWSUIT BROUGHT UNDER 1983, BUT 1983 WAS DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE FOR A PRIVATE OF RIGHT OF ACTION FOR ANYONE WHO'S
A VICTIM. BUT -- AND I THINK ALL OF US, BY THE WAY, AS YOU MAY HAVE
ALREADY GUESSED, I'M CERTAINLY 100 PERCENT ON BOARD AGAINST
PROHIBITING RACIAL PROFILE, I SUPPORT THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE NUMEROUS LAWS THAT PROHIBIT IT. I'M VERY
MUCH IN -- IN SUPPORT OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT ALSO PROHIBIT ANY RACIAL
81
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PROFILING, AND I THINK IT IS IMMORAL, UNETHICAL AND INAPPROPRIATE IN ALL
RESPECTS.
MS. BICHOTTE: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: AND SO, WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON --
MS. BICHOTTE: YES, WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THAT.
MR. GOODELL: -- ON THAT. BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE
WITH THIS BILL IS IT GOES ON TO REQUIRE EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO
RECORD AND RETAIN A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT ANYONE WHO IS STOPPED IN
A TRAFFIC -- A TRAFFIC STOP, INTERVIEWED, STOPPED ON THE STREET, WHO
UNDERWENT EVEN A CONSENSUAL SEARCH OF THEIR PERSON OR PROPERTY, AND
THAT REQUIRES THEM TO FILL OUT DATA ON ALL OF THOSE GROUPS OF PEOPLE,
CORRECT?
MS. BICHOTTE: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: AND -- AND NOT ONLY IS THE DATA --
MS. BICHOTTE: WELL, IT'S -- IT'S FOR -- THE DATA -- IT'S
REQUIRED FOR EVERYBODY. SO, THE DATA WILL CAPTURE WHO WAS STOPPED --
WHO WERE STOPPED, WHO ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE STOPPED. SO, IT
WOULD ACTUALLY AGGREGATE DATA TO SEE IF IT'S -- THERE'S A -- IS THERE A
DISPARITY IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO -- WHO HAS BEEN
STOPPED, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THIS BILL BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S
BEEN A DISPROPORTIONATELY STOP AND FRISK IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
MR. GOODELL: BUT -- YOU MENTION STOP AND FRISK,
BUT THAT'S BEEN -- THAT'S BEEN BANNED SINCE 2003, RIGHT, 17 YEARS AGO.
MS. BICHOTTE: WELL, I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS
THAT'S BEEN BANNED. I MEAN, WE -- WE CURRENTLY -- WE ARE HERE PUTTING
82
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
LAWS TO CERTAINLY UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, RIGHT? SO, THE REASON WHY
WE'RE PUSHING A LOT OF THESE POLICE REFORM IS OBVIOUSLY MANY OF THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE NOT ABIDE [SIC] BY THE RULES. PEOPLE ARE BEING
TREATED INHUMANLY, PEOPLE ARE TREATING -- BEING TREATED WITH
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. SO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT IN
LAW IN OUR STATUTE THAT THESE PRACTICES ARE NOT CONTINUOUS, AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COLLECT DATA TO PROVE THAT THESE PRACTICES ARE NOT
CONTINUOUS.
I MEAN, IN -- IN -- IN THE UNITED STATES, IN THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN 1776 IT STATES THAT, ALL MEN ARE EQUAL
AND THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE
RIGHTS THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
THIS DECLARATION PRECEDED BY THE CONSTITUTION -- 1787. SO, WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, WE ARE IMPLEMENTING LAWS BECAUSE RACISM
STILL EXISTS. SEXISM STILL EXISTS. RELIGIOUS -- DISCRIMINATION AND
PRACTICES AGAINST RELIGIOUS BELIEFS STILL EXIST. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
PRACTICES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION STILL EXISTS. SO, WHEN WE'RE PRESENTING
OUR DATA TO THE COURT TO SHOW PROOF THAT THESE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
EXIST, THIS LAW WOULD HELP REMEDY SOME OF THESE PRACTICES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY HAPPENING.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, AS YOU AND I STARTED OUT THIS
DISCUSSION, I MEAN, THERE'S MULTIPLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT PROHIBIT
RACIAL PROFILING, WHICH WE SUPPORT, THERE ARE MULTIPLE COURT CASES THAT
HAVE BANNED RACIAL PROFILING, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COURT CASES GOING
BACK TO 2003 THAT SAID YOU CANNOT USE STOP AND FRISK, RIGHT?
83
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MS. BICHOTTE: MM-HMM.
MR. GOODELL: MOST POLICE DEPARTMENTS, IF NOT ALL
OF THEM, BANNED RACIAL PROFILING. IT'S NOT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE DOZENS OF PROHIBITIONS THAT ONE MORE WILL -- WILL MAKE
ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT REALLY THE POSITION.
MS. BICHOTTE: WELL, IT'S --
MR. GOODELL: THIS IS MORE ABOUT REPORTING,
RIGHT?
MS. BICHOTTE: WELL, IT'S ABOUT REPORTING, IT'S
ABOUT THE -- THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF IT. YOU MENTIONED ABOUT SECTION
1983. WELL, SECTION 1983 HAS BEEN EXPANDED IN APPLICATION, BUT IT'S
STILL PROCEDURALLY DIFFICULT. THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT THIS LAW
SO THAT WE CAN FIND A WAY, A TOOL TO GET VERIFIABLE AND QUANTIFIABLE
DATA. AND, IN DOING THAT, IT WILL CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHEN THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY ARE TOLD OR JUST, YOU KNOW,
RACIALLY PROFILING OR TARGETING INDIVIDUALS, COMMUNITIES AND HOUSING
COMMUNITIES.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
MS. BICHOTTE: MM-HMM.
MR. GOODELL: ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: WELL I -- I WOULD HOPE THAT OUR
DISCUSSION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT NO ONE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM JUSTIFIES
84
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RACIAL PROFILING. AND THANKFULLY, WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
THAT BAR RACIAL PROFILING IN BOTH THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT BAN ANY RACIAL PROFILING.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE CASES THAT SAY IT'S COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. WE ALSO
HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CIVIL PROVISIONS AGAINST RACIAL PROFILING THAT ALREADY
EXIST. ONE UNDER THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, AND ONE IN
FEDERAL COURT UNDER 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. AND BOTH OF THEM
ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU SUSPECT THAT THE LOCAL JUDGE, FOR EXAMPLE,
MIGHT HAVE SOME ANIMUS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, BUT IF YOU
THOUGHT THAT, YOU COULD GO TO THE FEDERAL COURT. AND SO, THERE'S NO
ARGUMENT BY ANYBODY ABOUT RACIAL PROFILING AND HOW IT'S BEEN BANNED
AND THAT WE HAVE BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL REMEDIES ALREADY IN PLACE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL, HOWEVER, IS IT GOES ON AND
SAYS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE TO RECORD MULTIPLE THINGS
WHENEVER THEY STOP AND TALK WITH ANYONE. IF THEY STOP A CAR, THEY HAVE
TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON EACH PERSON THAT'S IN THE CAR. THAT'S ON LINE
29 ON PAGE TWO. AND THE DATA THEY HAVE TO COLLECT IS RACE, ETHNICITY
AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CAR EVEN IF THERE'S
NO TICKET WRITTEN. EVEN IF THE PURPOSE OF THE STOP WAS JUST TO SAY, HEY
YOUR TAILLIGHT'S BURNED OUT, YOU NEED TO GET IT FIXED. IT ALSO REQUIRES THE
SAME TYPE OF DATA REPORTING FOR SIMPLE INTERVIEWS. SO, IF YOU'RE
INVESTIGATING A HORRIFIC CRIME AND TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, YOU HAVE TO
STOP AND FILL OUT A DETAILED REPORT; PEDESTRIAN STOPS, A SIMPLE INQUIRY,
CONSENSUAL SEARCHES. SO, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE AND THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY HAS IS THAT WE ARE OVERWHELMING OUR LAW
85
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ENFORCEMENT WITH DATA COLLECTION AND THAT TAKES AWAY FROM THE TIME
THEY HAVE TO SOLVE SERIOUS CRIMES, OR STOP VEHICLES THAT OUGHT TO BE
STOPPED RATHER THAN JUST GIVING THEM A WARNING.
SO, FOR -- FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED, AND THE FACT
THAT EACH STOP HAS TO TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF RACE, COLOR, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR RELIGION
WHICH, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE IF -- IF I'M
STOPPED FOR A TRAFFIC STOP AND THE OFFICER SAYS TO ME, WHAT'S YOUR
RELIGION?" I'D TELL THEM TO GO POUND SALT. WELL, ACTUALLY, I WOULDN'T. IF
THE OFFICER ASKED ME, I'D INVITE HIM TO MY CHURCH BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU
KNOW, I'D LOVE TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN MY CHURCH. BUT THIS REQUIRES
THE OFFICER TO ASK WHAT'S YOUR RELIGION, WHAT'S YOUR NATIONAL ORIGIN AND
RECORD THAT. YOUR RELIGION. YOUR NATIONAL ORIGIN. YOUR RACE, YOUR
COLOR, ON EVERY SINGLE INTERACTION. YOU STOP A PEDESTRIAN AND SAY, HEY
DID YOU SEE ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS? THE PEDESTRIAN SAYS, NO, THEY HAVE
TO RECORD. ONCE YOU'RE DONE SAYING, THANKS, I'M GLAD YOU TOLD ME YOU
DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG, BY THE WAY, WHAT'S YOU RACE, COLOR. WHAT'S
YOUR RELIGION? WHAT'S YOUR NATIONAL ORIGIN? REALLY?
AND THIS STUFF IS NOT CHEAP. WHEN WE IMPOSE
MASSIVE AND INTRUSIVE DATA COLLECTION ON EVERY STOP, EVERY TRAFFIC STOP,
EVERY INTERVIEW, IT'S A MASSIVE UNFUNDED BURDEN, MANDATE, ON OUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. AND THE DATA WE COLLECT IS SO MASSIVE IT'S NOT USEFUL.
RATHER THAN TO ASK OUR POLICE OFFICERS EVERY TIME THEY STOP SOMEONE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RELIGION OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR ETHNICITY, EVEN
IF ALL THEY'RE DOING IS SAYING, USE YOUR TURN SIGNAL NEXT TIME, OKAY
86
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
BUDDY? OR, SLOW DOWN, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO CITATION AND NO TRAFFIC
TICKET, AND THEN REQUIRE THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO COLLECT ALL THIS
DATA AND SEND IT ON, IT'S A MASSIVE BURDEN.
AND SO WHILE EVERYONE AGREES THAT RACIAL PROFILING IS
INAPPROPRIATE, WE ALL SUPPORT THE FACT THAT IT'S ILLEGAL UNDER THE STATE
AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, NUMEROUS STATUTES, WE ALL SUPPORT THE FACT
THERE'S CIVIL LIA -- LIABILITY IF SOMEONE IS ENGAGING IN IT. WE DON'T THINK
WE NEED OUR POLICE BURDENED BY TIME-CONSUMING DATA COLLECTION THAT
REQUIRES THEM TO INQUIRE ABOUT A PERSON'S RELIGION OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR
A SIMPLE TRAFFIC STOP OR A WARNING OR A SIMPLE INTERVIEW, WHICH IS WHAT
THIS BILL DOES. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MS. BICHOTTE: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR.
GOODELL, JUST -- JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS BILL WILL NOT REQUIRE THE POLICE
OFFICER TO ASK ABOUT THEIR -- THEIR NATIONAL ORIGIN OR THEIR RACIAL OR
ETHNICITY MAKEUP. IT'S -- WILL BE DONE BY OBSERVATION, OKAY? JUST SO
YOU KNOW THAT.
AND, SECONDLY, YOU TALK ABOUT THIS MASSIVE
BURDENSOME. YOU KNOW WHAT'S A BURDEN? WHEN BLACK PEOPLE AND
LATINO PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED FOR NO REASON. WHAT WE'RE GOING
THROUGH NOW WITH ALL THE PROTESTS IS A BURDEN ON ALL OF US. IT'S A BURDEN
ON OUR HEARTS. IT'S A -- IT'S A HEAVY WEIGHT. SO, FOR YOU TO SAY THAT DATA
COLLECTION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT EVERY PROFESSION DOES, I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, AS PART OF THE HEALTH FIELD, WE NEED TO COLLECT DATA, THAT'S NOT A
87
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
BURDENSOME. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE PROFESSION MORE ACCURATE, IN A
SENSE, TO PROVIDE BETTER HEALTH CARE. FINANCE, LEGAL, HOUSING, SENIOR
CITIZENS, ALL OF THAT; WE ALWAYS NEED TO COLLECT DATA. IN IMPROVING OUR
CONSTITUTION, IN ORDER TO PRESENT IT TO THE COURT, VERIFIABLE AND
JUSTIFIABLE DATA, WE NEED PROOF, BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF WILL BE ON
THE VICTIMS.
AND AS YOU HAVE SEEN, EVEN NOW WITH THE SOCIAL
DISTANCING, WE HAD DATA SHOWING THAT POLICE OFFICERS WERE TARGETING
MINORITY COMMUNITIES AND ARRESTING BLACK PEOPLE, 35 OUT OF 40 PEOPLE
GET ARRESTED FOR SOCIAL DISTANCING WERE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE. THAT'S
WHY WE NEED TO COLLECT DATA. AND LET ME TELL YOU, STOP AND FRISK IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT IT'S STILL BEING DONE. JUST BECAUSE A FEDERAL
ACTION EXISTS DOESN'T MEAN AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULDN'T BE AFFORDED
PROTECTION AND RELIEF UNDER THE STATE LAW. AND, AS MENTIONED, 1983
ACTIONS HAVE MADE -- MANY DIFFERENT STANDARDS INCLUDING KNOWLEDGE
AND SYSTEMATIC IMPACT THAT MAY NOT BE ANALOGOUS IN A STATE ACTION.
ALSO, SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO
SUIT FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND LACK OF THE RECORDKEEPING. MANY
TIMES THE SUIT AND -- AND PRICEY SETTLEMENTS AT A COST TO THE
DEPARTMENTS. WE DON'T WANT THAT. THIS PRACTICE INTENDS TO REDUCE
THESE LAWSUITS AND SAVE OUR STATE MONEY.
SECOND, IN MOST RECENT REPORTS ABOUT CHICAGO AND
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CITED THAT THE
LACK OF RECORDKEEPING BY SUCH DEPARTMENTS WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST
ISSUE. NEW YORK SHOULD ABIDE BY STANDARDS EXPECTED BY THE JUSTICE
88
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
DEPARTMENT.
NOW, I ALSO WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE -- THE NEW YORK
CIVIL LIBERTY UNION ALSO DID A REPORT LAST YEAR, AND LET ME QUOTE BY --
LEGAL DIRECTOR SAID, THAT WHILE WE WELCOME THE DRAMATIC DECLINE IN
REPORTS STOPPED, WE REMAIN CONCERNED THAT THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL STOPS
IS FAR LARGER BECAUSE OFFICERS ARE FAILING TO DOCUMENT MANY STOPS.
THEY DON'T WANT TO. IN ADDITION IT SHOWS THAT -- OUR REPORT SHOWS THAT
THE RACIAL DISPARITIES CONTINUE TO BE A STUBBORN PROBLEM, THAT MOST
STOPS ARE OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, AND THAT THE POLICE ROUTINELY AND
IMPROPERLY ARE FRISKING NEW YORKERS.
SO, WE HAVE BEEN PASSING THIS BILL FOR MANY YEARS
BECAUSE IT'S AN ISSUE. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE DATA FROM THE
BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO REFUSE TO RELEASE IT UNDER THE FOIL
LAW. SO TODAY, MR. SPEAKER, IT IS -- IT IS WITH PASSION THAT I SPONSOR
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHICH PROHIBITS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM
USING RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING, TO ESTABLISH COLLECTION DATA ON TRAFFIC
STOPS, AND CREATES A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC
PROFILING. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE LAWS IN THE FEDERAL LEVEL OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US, SUCH AS THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, WHICH PROTECTS OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY, OR THE 14TH
AMENDMENT, WHICH PROVIDES EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AND BANS
DISCRIMINATORY ACTS, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS RACISM STILL EXISTS, SEXISM
STILL EXISTS, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION STILL EXISTS,
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DIFFERENT RELIGION STILL EXISTS. WE NEED THESE
LAWS. WE NEED THESE STATE LAW, WE NEED THESE MUNICIPALITY LAWS TO
89
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PROTECT THE CITIZENS AND THE CIVILIANS OF THE STATE OF OUR NEW YORK.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I AM -- I AM INTRODUCING THIS
BECAUSE TODAY NEW YORK DEMANDS JUSTICE. THEY DEMAND ANSWERS.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOUNG BLACK MEN ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 5 PERCENT
OF THE CITY'S POPULATION, BUT 38 PERCENT OF REPORTED STOPS. IT ISN'T
BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE GUILTY OR DESERVING; IN FACT, 80 PERCENT OF THOSE
STOPS, THESE YOUNG MEN WERE INNOCENT. FRISKS ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE
CONDUCTED WHEN AN OFFICER REASONABLY SUSPECTS THE PERSON HAS A
WEAPON THAT POSES A THREAT TO AN OFFICER'S; YET, 66 PERCENT OF REPORTED
STOPS LED TO FRISKS, AND 93 PERCENT OF THOSE FRISKS NO WEAPON WAS
FOUND.
THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK ARE MARCHING IN OUR STREETS.
THEY ARE DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR LOVED ONES.
THEY WANT THE POLICE TO PROTECT THEM, NOT TO SUSPECT THEM. DURING THE
HEIGHT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WHEN COMMUNITIES OF COLORS WERE
FACING THE HIGHEST DEATH RATES, AND STILL ARE, POLICE WERE IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS ARRESTING BLACK PEOPLE FOR SOCIAL DISTANCING VIOLATIONS.
AND, AS MENTIONED, IN BROOKLYN, 35 OF THE 40 ARRESTS WERE BLACK
PEOPLE. THE CITY AND THE STATE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF RACIAL PROFILING.
IN 2013, A FEDERAL JUDGE FOUND THAT NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
LIABLE FOR A PATTERN OF PRACTICES OF RACIAL PROFILING, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STOPS IN THE LANDMARK CASE OF FLOYD V. NEW YORK. THE CITY
SUBSEQUENTLY DROPPED ITS APPEAL AND BEGAN THE JOINT REMEDIAL PROCESS
ORDERED BY THE COURT. SINCE THAT RULING, THE NYPD CONFIRMED IN 2019
THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED 2,600 COMPLAINTS OF RACIAL PROFILING, AND AS THEY
90
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
INVESTIGATED THEMSELVES, THEY FOUND ALL THE COMPLAINTS TO BE
UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE LESSON WE LEARNED FROM FLOYD V. NEW YORK --
CITY OF NEW YORK IS THAT THE POLICE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO POLICE
THEMSELVES.
MY BILL WILL BAN RACIAL PROFILING BY COLLECTING DATA.
POLICE OFFICERS ACROSS THE STATE WILL REQUIRE TO FILL OUT A FORM EVERY
TIME THEY STOP A CIVILIAN. THE FORM WILL INCLUDE THE REASON FOR THE
STOP, IF THE ARREST WAS MADE, WHETHER THE -- WHETHER FORCE WAS USED,
AND THE NAME, AGE, GENDER AND RACE OF THE PERSON STOPPED. THIS BILL
ALSO ALLOWS AFFECTED CIVILIANS THE RIGHT TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SEEK REASONABLE MONETARY COMPENSATION IN
CASES WHERE OFFICERS EMPLOY THESE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. EIGHTEEN
STATES ALREADY REQUIRE MANDATORY DATA COLLECTION FOR ALL STOPS, SEARCHES,
AND 15 REQUIRE ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA.
MR. SPEAKER, NEW YORK IS FALLING BEHIND AND I HAVE
TO SAY AS WE'RE VOTING FOR ALL THESE BILLS, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR COLLEAGUES
IN THE OTHER HOUSE, THE SENATE, HAS INTRODUCED A WATERED-DOWN BILL
THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE DATA COLLECTION ON STOP AND FRISKS BY POLICE
OFFICERS, AND TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT FOR A VICTIM OF RACIAL PROFILING TO SUE
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE CANNOT BE THROWING A BONE TO ALL THOSE WHO
ARE A VICTIM OF RACIAL PROFILING. QUITE INSULTING. GEORGE FLOYD,
BREONNA TAYLOR, ERIC GARNER, AND SO MANY OTHERS WHOSE NAMES ARE
CRIED OUT BY PEOPLE ACROSS THIS ROOM, THE SENATE BELIEVES IT IS TOO
MUCH OF A BURDEN TO COLLECT DATA BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE
SAYING THAT. EVEN THOUGH NEW YORK IS LAGGING BEHIND, OTHER STATES, OF
91
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
COURSE, ARE IN THIS.
THE PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING THE ANSWERS FOR THESE
VICTIMS AND I WILL FIGHT TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION. WE CANNOT WATER DOWN
JUSTICE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO NAME A FEW PEOPLE ON THIS LIST. THESE
ARE A LIST OF RACIAL PROFILING VICTIMS. IT'S LONG, BUT I'M GOING TO NAME
SOME: ERIC GARNER, JOHN CRAWFORD, MICHAEL BROWN, EZELL FORD, NATE
PARKER, MICHELLE CUSSEAUX, LAQUAN MCDONALD, TANISHA ANDERSON,
AKAI GURLEY, TAMIR RICE, RUMAIN BRISBON, JERAME REID, MATTHEW
AJIBADE, FRANK SMART, NATASHA MCKENNA, TONY ROBINSON, ANTHONY
HILL, MYA HALL, PHILLIP WRIGHT, ERIC HARRIS, WALTER SCOTT, WILLIAM
CHAPMAN, ALEXIA CHRISTIAN, BRENDON GLENN, VICTOR MANUEL LAROSA,
JONATHAN SANDERS, FREDDIE GRAY, JOSEPH MANN, SALVADO ELLSWOOD,
SANDRA BLAND, ALBERT JOSEPH DAVIS, DARRIUS STEWART, BILLY RAY DAVIS,
SAMUEL DUBOSE, MICHAEL SABBIE, BRIAN DAY, CHRISTIAN TAYLOR, TROY
ROBINSON, ASSHAMS PHAROAH MANLEY, FELIX KUMI, KEITH HARRISON
MCLEOD, JUNIOR PROSPER, LAMONTEZ JONES, PATERSON BROWN, DOMINIC
HUTCHINSON, ANTHONY ASHFORD, ALONZO SMITH, TYREE CRAWFORD, INDIA
KAGER, LA'VANTE BIGGS, MICHAEL LEE MARSHALL, JAMAR CLARK, RICHARD
PERKINS, NATHANIEL HARRIS PICKETT, BENNI LEE TIGNOR, MIGUEL ESPINAL,
MICHAEL NOEL AND ANTRONIE SCOTT. WHEN DOES THE LIST END? DAVID
JOSEPH, CALIN ROQUEMORE, DYZHAWN PERKINS, CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,
MARCO LOUD, PETER GAINES, TORREY ROBINSON, DARIUS ROBINSON, KEVIN
HICKS, MARY TRUXILLO, DEMARCUS SEMER, WILLIE TILLMAN, TERRILL
THOMAS, SYLVILLE SMITH, ALTON STERLING, PHILANDO CASTILE, TERENCE
CRUTCHER, PAUL O'NEAL, ALTERIA WOODS, JORDAN EDWARDS, AARON BAILEY,
92
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RONELL FOSTER, STEPHON CLARK, ANTWON ROSE, BOTHAM JEAN, PAMELA
TURNER, DOMINIQUE CLAYTON, ATATIANA JEFFERSON, CHRISTOPHER
WHITFIELD, CHRISTOPHER MCCORVEY, ERIC REASON, MICHAEL LORENZO
DEAN, BREONNA TAYLOR, GEORGE FLOYD.
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES.
WE SAY ALL THEIR NAMES, WE SAY ALL THEIR NAMES, WE SAY ALL THEIR NAMES.
THINK ABOUT ALL THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE STOPPED AND ADDRESSED
BY OFFICERS ON THE WAY TO WORK EVERY DAY. HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE A
VEHICLE PULLED OVER AND REALIZE THAT THAT DRIVER'S BLACK. WHILE WHITE
PARENTS TELL THEIR CHILDREN TO GO TO POLICE OFFICERS IF THEY GET LOST, BLACK
PARENTS ARE TELLING THEIR KIDS TO CROSS THE STREET AND WALK THE OPPOSITE
WAY FOR FEAR THAT THEIR CHILD WILL BE THE NEXT BREONNA TAYLOR. WE
CANNOT LOSE ONE MORE VICTIM TO RACIAL PROFILING.
TODAY, THIS LEGISLATION, THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP WE
MUST TAKE FORWARD ON POLICE -- ON POLICE REFORM. WITHOUT IT, OUR
COMMUNITY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL BE WITHOUT REPAIR.
MR. SPEAKER, AGAIN, I'M PROUD TO INTRODUCE THIS LEGISLATION AND I
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES HERE TO VOTE ON THIS LEGISLATION. I ALSO -- I
ALSO PRAY THAT MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE WILL THINK OF ALL THE NAMES
AND MANY MORE ON THIS BILL AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE SOLD OUT, WE
SHOULD NOT BE THROWN A BONE. WE AS BLACK PEOPLE, WE AS EVERYBODY
HERE WHOSE BEEN FIGHTING, WE ARE ASKING FOR ALL OF US TO PASS THIS IN THE
NAME OF JUSTICE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
93
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT -- CALENDAR NO. 176. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE.
ANY MEMBER WISHING TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
CONFERENCE POSITION IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY
LEADER AT THE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE
REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE VOTING NO. IF THERE ARE REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO VOTE YES, PLEASE CONTACT THE MINORITY
LEADER'S OFFICE RIGHT AWAY. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
(PAUSE)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. THIS A PARTY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THOSE COLLEAGUES WHO
WOULD LIKE TO VOTE NEGATIVE SHOULD EITHER MOVE THEMSELVES INTO THE
CHAMBERS AND DO SO, OR CALL THE OFFICE AND WE'LL BE HAPPY CAST IT FOR
YOU. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
NO REASON FOR OVERJOY.
MR. RAMOS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RAMOS: MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I
PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE SPONSOR.
94
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RACIAL PROFILING, I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME
WITH THE ISSUE OF RACIAL PROFILING. THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
STOP ME BECAUSE I'M A HISPANIC MALE WITHOUT ANY OTHER ACTIONABLE
INFORMATION, AND ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO ACTUALLY OBSERVE THAT
OR TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THAT, OR FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IF THERE'S A PROBLEM
OF RACIAL PROFILING, IT JUST BOGGLES THE MIND WHY ANYBODY WOULD --
WOULD BE -- WHY THAT WOULD BE SUCH A HEAVY LIFT.
WE SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THIS IS ONLY WHAT WE
SEE ON VIDEO, IS HOW BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE JUST WALKED UP TO AND
SAYS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? AND THEY'LL SAY, I'M SITTING ON THE
PARK BENCH, NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, OFFICER. IS THERE A PROBLEM?
LET ME HAVE YOUR ID, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WHERE DO YOU WORK? AND
THE PERSON SAYS, LOOK, IF I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME, PLEASE LEAVE
ME ALONE. AND IT ONLY GOES DOWNHILL FROM THERE. THESE, YOU KNOW,
THIS -- AND IF THERE'S NO LAW THAT THIS IS NOT PROHIBITED, AN OFFICER WHO
HAS ACTIONABLE INFORMATION FROM APPROACHING SOMEBODY, IT REALLY
MAKES A RECORD OF THAT APPROACH SO THAT IF SOMEBODY FEELS AGGRIEVED,
THEY CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE STATISTICS AND SEE IF -- IF THIS IS THE CASE OR
IT ISN'T. SO, I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAMOS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I ACTUALLY
TRIED TO GET MY HAND UP BEFORE TO GO ON THE BILL, BUT I KNOW I'VE ONLY
GOT TWO MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WAS LOOKING OVER
95
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE BILL, AND, LISTEN, NOBODY WANTS RACIAL PROFILING. WE WANT TO STOP IT,
OF COURSE, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. BUT THE IDEA OF
HAVING SOMEBODY DO A CAR STOP, A POLICE OFFICER DOING A VEHICLE STOP
AND THEN HOLDING THOSE OCCUPANTS A LITTLE LONGER SO THAT THEY CAN SEE
WHO'S IN THE VEHICLE, ACCOUNT FOR IT, THINK ABOUT A NIGHTTIME STOP, TINTED
WINDOWS, YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE
THE RIGHT INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS DATA IS ABOUT. SO, NOW
YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO ROLL DOWN THEIR WINDOW AND PUT THE LIGHT
ON. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GUESS WHAT NATIONALITY AND WHAT RELIGION
THEY ARE. IT'S NOT ALWAYS, RIGHT, WE DON'T WANT TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS
COVER. YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO EXACTLY DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.
YOU'RE TELLING THEM TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY
ARE REALLY, WHAT RACE, WHAT -- WHAT NATIONAL ORIGIN THEY ARE, WHAT
RELIGION THEY ARE.
YOU KNOW, THIS -- THIS BILL IS -- I -- I LIKE THE INTENTION
AND I AGREE WITH IT, LET'S ALSO LOOK AT IF I'M A POLICE OFFICER IN THE 67TH
PRECINCT IN EAST FLATBUSH, BROOKLYN, AND I AM THE SUMMONS
(UNINTELLIGIBLE), WHERE I ISSUE SUMMONSES, MOST OF MY CAR STOPS ARE
GOING TO BE SOMEONE WHOSE OF COLOR, NOT LIKE ME, AND YOU MAY LOOK AT
ME AND THINK THAT I'M PREJUDICE, AND I'M STOPPING PEOPLE THAT DON'T
LOOK LIKE ME. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, AND
I THINK WE NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK ON THIS BILL. FOR THAT REASON,
I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. REILLY IN THE
NEGATIVE.
96
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. BARRON.
MR. BARRON: TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE, MR. SPEAKER.
YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY ABSURD THAT WE'RE ARE AT A POINT WHERE SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT TO GOING TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY, IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP POLICE
FROM KILLING US, LIKE MOST OF THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION, BUT YOU CAN'T
EVEN GET A FULL LEGISLATIVE BODY AND A GOVERNOR TO AGREE TO SOMETHING
AS BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CONSTITUTION AS STOP QUESTION AND FRISK
BEING AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PEACEFULLY WALK THROUGH OUR
COMMUNITIES WITHOUT BEING HARASSED. THIS IS ABSURD THAT PEOPLE
CANNOT SUPPORT A BILL LIKE THIS. EVEN IF THIS BILL WAS EVERYTHING I
WANTED IT TO BE, IT IS STILL NOT GOING TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY BECAUSE THIS
BILL DOESN'T PUNISH POLICE OFFICERS. THIS BILL DOESN'T HAVE ANY
CONSEQUENCES FOR POLICE OFFICERS, LIKE MOST OF THE BILLS WE'LL BE
PASSING. THESE ARE POLITICAL BILLS MORE THAN EFFECTIVE BILLS TO STOP
POLICE BRUTALITY.
BUT EVEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, SAFE, CONSTITUTIONALLY
CORRECT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A ONE-HOUSE BILL. I THINK IT'S ABSURD. I THINK
WE ARE IN A REALLY BAD PLACE. I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RISE UP
CONTINUALLY WHEN WE CAN'T GET SIMPLE THINGS LIKE THIS, RESPECTING SOME
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. I'M VOTING YES ON THIS BILL, BUT I UNDERSTAND, TOO,
THAT THIS BILL IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WHAT HAPPENS TO US AS
POLICE CONTINUE TO BEAT US AND BRUTALIZE US. THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT
AFTER AMADOU DIALLO, 41 BULLETS. IT WAS TALKED ABOUT AFTER SEAN BELL,
50 BULLETS. EVERY CASE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, WE TALKED ABOUT STOP,
QUESTION AND FRISK. AND NOW, THEY'RE STILL DOING IT, THEY'RE JUST NOT
97
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RECORDING IT. SO, IF THEY DON'T RECORDING -- RECORD IT, YOU THINK IT'S NOT
HAPPENING, BUT IT IS STILL HAPPENING.
SO, I'M GOING TO VOTE YES, BUT I STILL THINK WE HAVE TO
HAVE MUCH MORE TEETH AND MUCH MORE SUBSTANCE, MUCH MORE POWER TO
PUNISH POLICE. THEY SHOULD PAY CONSEQUENCES FOR KILLING US. THEY
SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARRON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. EPSTEIN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I JUST RISE
TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE CURRENT LAWS IN EFFECT
ARE NOT WORKING. NEW YORK HAS A LONG HISTORY OF RACIAL ABUSE WITH OUR
POLICE FORCE. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN EVERY POLICE, WE HAVE LOTS OF
GOOD POLICE OFFICERS, BUT WITHOUT THE DATA, WITHOUT THE INFORMATION,
WITHOUT PEOPLE WALKING [SIC] OVER SOMEONE'S SHOULDERS, WE'RE NEVER
GOING TO GET TO A BETTER PLACE. THERE COULD BE LAWS ON THE BOOKS, BUT
THE ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
THIS BILL HELPS US PUT A SPOTLIGHT ON OFFICERS BECAUSE
THEY'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION. NOW, I UNDERSTAND COLLECTING
INFORMATION IS DIFFICULT. I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE, NOT KNOWING EXACTLY
THE RACE OR THE RELIGION OF SOMEONE IS QUESTIONABLE. WE'RE ASKING
PEOPLE TO USE THEIR BEST JUDGMENT. AND THE REALITY IS WHEN WE GET THIS
DATA, IF WE GET THIS PASSED IN THE SENATE, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE POLICY DECISION BASED ON THAT DATA. WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE HOW
POLICING HAPPENS IN OUR CITY AND OUR STATE. WE NEED A NEW CHANGE
98
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
AND THIS BILL GOES A LONG WAY IN MOVING US IN THAT DIRECTION. I APPLAUD
THE SPONSOR AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. EPSTEIN IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE
FOLLOWING REPUBLICANS VOTE YES ON THIS BILL: MR. ASHBY, MR. SCHMITT,
MR. SMULLEN AND MR. WALCZYK. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED. THANK
YOU.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
SHH.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU
COULD PLEASE RECORD OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. SAYEGH, IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
CALENDAR NO. 70, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A01360-A, CAL --
CALENDAR NO. 70, PERRY, HEASTIE, ARROYO, TAYLOR, D'URSO, FERNANDEZ,
RIVERA, HYNDMAN, NIOU, BARRON, GOTTFRIED, WRIGHT, FAHY, BLAKE,
RICHARDSON, CRUZ, EPSTEIN, RODRIGUEZ, MOSLEY, SIMON, L. ROSENTHAL,
ORTIZ, AUBRY, OTIS, GANTT, CRESPO, GLICK, JOYNER, SIMOTAS, CARROLL,
DAVILA, VANEL, STECK, KIM. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, IN
99
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RELATION TO RECORDING CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED, MR. PERRY.
MR. PERRY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL, THE
NEW YORK -- THE NEW YORKER'S RIGHT TO MONITOR ACT, WOULD PROVIDE
A PERSON NOT UNDER ARREST OR IN THE CUSTODY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THE
RIGHT TO RECORD LAW ENFORCEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES, RETAIN CUSTODY AND
CONTROL OF SUCH RECORDINGS. THE BILL WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR PERSONS WHO CAN, ONE, ESTABLISH THAT THEY EXERCISED OR
ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO RECORD LAW ENFORCEMENT-RELATED
ACTIVITIES, AND, TWO, AN OFFICER ACTED TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH PERSON'S
ATTEMPT TO RECORD LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BY INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, INTENTIONALLY PREVENTING OR ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT SUCH
PERSON FROM RECORDING; THREATENING A PERSON -- SUCH PERSON FOR
RECORDING A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY; COMMANDING SUCH PERSON TO
STOP RECORDING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY; STOPPING, SEIZING, SEARCHING,
TICKETING OR ARRESTING THAT PERSON BECAUSE HE OR SHE RECORDED A LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY; UNLAWFULLY SEIZING OR UNLAWFULLY DESTROYING SUCH
RECORDING OR COPYING SUCH RECORDING WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PERSON
WHO RECORDED IT. AND, LASTLY, THE BILL ESTABLISHES AN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE TO A CIVIL ACTION FOR PERSONS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF
THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO RECORD.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL MR. PERRY
YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?
100
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. PERRY: I'M QUITE INCLINED TO DO SO; AND I DO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY --
MR. RA: WAS THAT A YES?
MR. PERRY, THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE NEED FOR THIS BILL AND THEN SOME OF THE PROVISIONS DEALING
WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE INFORMATION AND OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BUT
JUST TO START OFF, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE NEED FOR THE BILL, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS
HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECORDING THESE
ACTIVITIES. WE -- WE CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF VIDEOS
OVER THE, YOU KNOW, THE FEW WEEKS OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
DURING MANY OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON. SO, DO -- DO
YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE RIGHT IN NEW YORK
STATE TO RECORD POLICE ACTIVITIES?
MR. PERRY: SAY THAT AGAIN?
MR. RA: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW,
NEW YORK -- NEW YORKERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECORD POLICE
ACTIVITIES?
MR. PERRY: I, AND MANY NEW YORKERS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE WHO HAVE SOUGHT TO -- ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT, KNOW THEY
HAVE THE RIGHT. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR I KNOWING, IT'S AFFIRMING
THIS SO THAT THE POLICE AGENCIES LIKE THE NYPD WILL KNOW FOR SURE AND
NOT JUST KNOW, BUT RESPECT THAT RIGHT. AND THIS BILL WILL PROVIDE SOME
101
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
KIND OF ACTION THAT WILL HURT THE CITY AND THEIR POCKETBOOKS IF THEY
CONTINUE TO ALLOW OFFICERS AND TO COVER FOR OFFICERS WHO VIOLATE THAT
RIGHT BLATANTLY, TOTALLY IN DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RIGHT.
MR. RA: OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID IT WILL HURT
THE CITY IN THE POCKETBOOKS. SO, LET'S -- I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOME --
SOME OF THE PROVISION OF THIS, BUT LET'S GO TO THAT PIECE OF IT. THERE'S A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, SO THAT WOULD BE AGAINST THE OFFICER OR THE
MUNICIPALITY EMPLOYING THE OFFICER, OR -- OR BOTH?
MR. PERRY: WELL, IN MOST CASES, THE OFFICERS
OPERATE UNDER COVER OF INDEMNITY BY THE CITY. I WISH THAT WASN'T THE
CASE BECAUSE IT WOULD CERTAINLY CAUSE MORE PERSONAL RESPECT FOR THE
LAW. BUT BECAUSE OFFICERS KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT AND
SHOULD THEY FACE SOME ATTEMPT TO PENALIZE THEM BY A LAWSUIT WHICH, IN
MOST CASES, IF YOU FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT, THEY HAVE LOST.
THEY WOULD BE MORE OBSERVING OF THE LAW AND BE MORE RESPECT -- THE
OFFICERS MORE WORTHY OF RESPECT.
MR. RA: OKAY. SO, LET'S -- LET'S GO THROUGH THIS. SO,
THE OFFICER IS HAVING SOME TYPE OF INTERACTION WITH A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC, I ASSUME IT -- IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DECIDES
TO START RECORDING, OR THEY COULD BE RECORDING A THIRD-PARTY THAT'S
HAVING SOME TYPE OF INTERACTION WITH THE POLICE, CORRECT? IT COULD BE
YOUR -- COULD YOU RECORD YOUR OWN INTERACTION WITH THE POLICE, OR IS
THIS INTENDED TO BE FOR, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE SOMETHING HAPPENING IN
FRONT OF YOU AND YOU START RECORDING IT.
MR. PERRY: WELL, OF COURSE, IF IT'S PRACTICAL
102
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PHYSICALLY, A CITIZEN, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, THEY COULD WEAR A BODY CAMERA, IN
WHICH CASE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PHYSICALLY RECORD INTERACTIONS
BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND ANYBODY ELSE. IT'S KIND OF AWKWARD IF YOU'RE
INVOLVED IN PHYSICAL INTERACTION WITH THE POLICE TO BE VIDEOTAPING OR
RECORDING AT THE SAME TIME. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
THAT YOU HAVE. BUT, THAT'S NOT USUALLY THE CASE. USUALLY THE CASE IS THE
POLICE OFFICER IS ARRESTING SOMEONE OR PERFORMING HIS DUTY AS A POLICE
OFFICER IN SOME MANNER AND A CITIZEN MIGHT NOT, FOR -- FOR ALL KINDS OF
REASONS, WANT TO MAKE A RECORD OF WHAT THE POLICE OFFICER IS DOING.
OFTEN, IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE OBSERVE THE OFFICERS MISBEHAVING, OR THEY'RE
MISBEHAVING OR MISCONDUCT IS SO FREQUENT AND PEOPLE ON THE STREETS,
ORDINARY CITIZEN, IS SO -- SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT SO PEOPLE ARE ON ALERT AT
ALL TIMES. SO, WHENEVER YOU SEE A POLICE ACTIVITY, IT'S INSTINCTIVE FOR
YOU TO RECORD IT BECAUSE YOU -- YOU -- YOU CAN'T TRUST THAT THE OFFICER IS
GOING TO BE PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING
TO ENFORCE THE LAW AGAINST.
MR. RA: OKAY. SO IF YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, SOME
INTERACTION BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE -- AND A POLICE OFFICER AND
YOU NOW WANT TO START RECORDING IT. IS THERE -- WHAT -- WHAT'S EXPECTED
OF YOU UNDER THIS BILL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE EXERCISING THIS RIGHT? DO
YOU, YOU KNOW, STAND IN A SAFE DISTANCE? IS THERE ANYTHING REGARDING
HOW CLOSE YOU'RE ABLE TO GET TO THIS INTERACTION?
MR. PERRY: I EXPECT NO PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE FROM
THE POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED OR ANY OTHER POLICE OFFICER. BUT, AS WE
KNOW, AS WE SEE EVERY DAY, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF VIDEO -- VIDEOS,
103
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THOUSANDS OF RECORDINGS OF ALL SORTS THAT SHOW THAT THE POLICE USUALLY
BEGINS THE ACTION OF INTERFERING AND THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO -- TO RECORD
THEIR WORKING FOR THE -- THE -- THE CITIZENS OF THE -- THE CITY; INSTEAD,
THEY SEEM TO THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING NEEDS TO BE COVERED UP OR
SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC AND THEY AVOID OR TRY TO INTERFERE WITH AND STOP
THE FREE -- THE FREEDOM OF THE CITIZEN TO RECORD WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
MR. RA: SO IF -- IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, RECORDING AND
YOU CAN HAVE THIS PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TRIGGERED, IT SAYS INTENTIONALLY
PREVENTING OR ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT THE PERSON FROM RECORDING LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. NOW, YOU KNOW, SUPPOSE THERE IS AN ARREST
BEING MADE AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE OFFICER, MAYBE ANOTHER OFFICER
COMES TO -- TO ASSIST THAT OFFICER AND THEY ARE BLOCKING THE -- THE VIDEO
WHILE THEY'RE AFFECTING THE ARREST. WOULD YOU INTEND THAT THAT WOULD BE
INTERFERING WITH -- WITH THE PERSON FROM RECORDING THE ACTIVITY?
MR. PERRY: IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU DO NOT, AND THIS LAW
DOES NOT EMPOWER OR MAKE THAT CLAIM THAT AN ORDINARY CITIZEN, OR ANY
CITIZEN, HAS ANY RIGHT TO ACTIVELY, DIRECTLY INTERFERE IN POLICE
ENDEAVORING TO DO THEIR DUTY IN THE PROPER WAY. CITIZENS, HOWEVER,
WHEN THEY SEE A POLICE OFFICER ABUSING THE RIGHT AND THE HONOR THAT WE
-- AND PRIVILEGE THEY HAVE TO WEAR THE BADGE AND BE POLICE OFFICERS,
WHEN CITIZENS SEE THAT, THEY FEEL A PERSONAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND WHAT WE CAN DO, WHICH IS LEGAL UNDER THE LAW
AND THE CONSTITUTION IS TO VIDEOTAPE IT, RECORD IT SO THAT WE CAN SEEK
JUSTICE IN ANOTHER WAY.
MR. RA: AND THEN -- SO AFTER THE FACT OF THIS, RIGHT,
104
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE PERSON NOW HAS, YOU KNOW, TODAY, MAYBE YEARS AGO IF WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT THIS THERE MIGHT BE A TAPE OR WHATEVER, BUT WE WOULD
ASSUME ON TODAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE A CELL PHONE. PEOPLE CARRY
PHONES WITH VERY GOOD VIDEO CAMERAS.
MR. PERRY: THANK GOD.
MR. RA: SO, THE CUSTODY OF THAT RECORDING UNDER THIS
SITS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL. IF, SAY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOW KNOWS THAT
THAT RECORDING WAS -- WAS TAKEN AND THEY FEEL IT'S GOING TO SHOW
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE PERSON THEY WERE APPREHENDING, CAN THE POLICE
GET ACCESS TO THAT -- THAT VIDEO?
MR. PERRY: I'M SURE THAT THERE IS A PROCESS, LEGAL,
THAT WOULD ENABLE THE POLICE TO DO THAT IF THEY CHOOSE TO SEEK THAT.
EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, USUALLY THE COURTS WILL ENFORCE THAT THE CITIZEN
HANDS THAT OVER TO THE PROPER INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES. SO, WE DON'T
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE VIDEOTAPE -- THE VIDEO -- THE VIDEO OR
RECORDING WOULD BE ABOUT HIDING OR HOLDING BACK INFORMATION FROM THE
POLICE.
MR. RA: OKAY. BUT -- SO THEN ON TOP OF THIS, THERE'S,
YOU KNOW, THAT POLICE OFFICER, IF THEY ARE ACCUSED ON THIS PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE, THERE IS, I BELIEVE, ONE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE THAT IS -- IS GIVEN HERE, AND THAT'S WHEN THE OFFICER HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE PERSON RECORDING SUCH LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY FOR A CRIME DEFINED IN THE PENAL LAW INVOLVING OBSTRUCTING
GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION. SO, MY QUESTION IS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, OR IT'S JUST THAT SO IF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD PROBABLE
105
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
CAUSE TO ARREST THE PERSON FOR SOME -- FOR SOME OTHER CRIME THAT DIDN'T
INVOLVE IN -- INTERFERING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL -- THIS AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO YOU, CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: YEAH, I DON'T -- I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
MR. RA: SO, IF -- IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE AN
OFFICER AND YOU ARE NOW -- HAVE THIS PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS NOW FILED
AGAINST YOU SAYING YOU INTERFERED WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL'S STATUTORY RIGHT
TO RECORD, YOU KNOW, THIS POLICE -- THEIR POLICE ACTIVITY.
MR. PERRY: OH, YEAH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE
YOU'RE GOING. YOU'RE SAYING IF THE OFFICER INTERFERED WITH SOMEONE'S
STATUTORY -- STATUTORY RIGHT --
MR. RA: NO, I'M SAYING IF --
MR. PERRY: THE OFFICER SHOULD NEVER INTERFERE.
MR. RA: I'M SAYING IF THERE IS AN ACCUSATION THEY
INTERFERED.
MR. PERRY: YES.
MR. RA: IF THERE'S A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION HERE, LIKE
ANY OTHER CIVIL PROCEEDING WE HAVE IN THE STATE, SOMETIMES THEY'RE
FILED RIGHTLY, SOMETIMES THEY'RE -- THEY'RE FILED MAYBE SOMEBODY FEELS
THEY GOT INTERFERED WITH, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, MEET THE
STATUTORY CRITERIA. SO, I'M SAYING IF THAT OFFICER WANTS TO DEFEND THAT
CLAIM, WE ARE GIVING THEM ONE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, CORRECT, ONLY IF THE
INDIVIDUAL HAD -- HE HAD -- THE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVED OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL
106
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: WELL, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT ANSWER
YOU WANT, BUT...
MR. RA: I WANT THE ANSWER OF WHAT THE BILL DOES.
MR. PERRY: THE DEFENSE TO THAT -- WOULD BE THAT
THEY DID NOT INTERFERE. AND IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE TODAY, IF YOU HAVE
PEOPLE RECORDING, THERE'S GOING TO BE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO PROVE
WHETHER THEY DID OR NOT. BUT OFTEN, UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE CITIZEN WHO
IS JUST EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT, TOO OFTEN THE POLICE, DURING THEIR
MISCONDUCT AND BAD BEHAVIOR, TAKES POSSESSION OF THE RECORDING
EQUIPMENT AND, ON OCCASIONS, HAVE BLATANTLY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
THERE ARE LOTS OF EVIDENCES AROUND TO SHOW THOSE BLATANT MISBEHAVIOR
BY THE POLICE. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO ASSERT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
AND THEN MAYBE CORRECT IT TO MAKE IT SOME KIND OF A CRIMINAL ACT ON ITS
OWN.
MR. RA: THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, ON -- MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU, MR. PERRY. SO, I -- I DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS WITH -- WITH THIS, ONE OF WHICH IS WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT OF MAINTAINING A
SAFE DISTANCE. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EASY IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IF,
YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S MULTIPLE OFFICERS INVOLVED AND SOMEBODY BLOCKS
THE RECORDING. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EASY TO FILE ONE OF THESE
ACTIONS SAYING THAT YOUR RIGHT TO RECORD HAS BEEN INTERFERED WITH. AND
-- AND I THINK THAT, YES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND IT BY SAYING,
107
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
OKAY, I WAS JUST DOING, YOU KNOW, I WAS AFFECTING AN ARREST, I WAS
QUESTIONING SOMEBODY. I WAS ASSISTING MAYBE ANOTHER OFFICER WHO --
WHO NEEDED BACKUP IN A SITUATION, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE SHOULD
BE SOME ABILITY TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND MAKE A SHOWING
THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE ENGAGED IN YOUR ROUTINE PROCEDURES OF AN
ARREST AND IT HAPPENED TO BLOCK SOMEBODY'S VIDEO.
NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LOT ABOUT VIDEO
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS. THERE'S SOME -- SOME BODY CAMERA BILLS,
WHICH -- WHICH ARE FINE. AND I THINK THE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, MANY
SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE THEY FEEL IT PROTECTS THEM AND -- AND YOU'RE ABLE TO
HAVE A COMPLETE RECORDING OF SOMETHING. TAKING SOMETHING THAT WE
ALREADY KNOW IS A RIGHT AND MAKING IT STATUTORY SO THAT THERE'S A CIVIL
RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH, BY THE WAY, NOW BASICALLY HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE AND THE EQUATION IS CHANGED BY THE PERSON BEING ACTUALLY
ARRESTED. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, IF I -- IF WE'RE THAT CONCERNED THAT
THERE'S SUCH MISCONDUCT, I -- I MIGHT BE, THEN, CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE
WOULD BE ARRESTED JUST TO HAVE THAT DEFENSE. I THINK OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT ARE -- ARE THERE
TRYING TO DO THEIR JOBS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, AND THIS IS GOING
TO CREATE, I THINK, ADDITIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THEM DOING THAT. I THINK
THE BETTER WAY FOR TRANSPARENCY IS THINGS LIKE BODY CAMERAS AND THOSE
TYPE OF ENTITIES WHICH WE'RE -- WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IN SOME
OF THE OTHER BILLS. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL
108
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: WILL THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
MR. PERRY: CERTAINLY.
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: THE SPONSOR
YIELDS.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. PERRY. SO, I KNOW
THAT WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS BILL AND COMING FROM THE ASPECT
OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND THE OFFICERS WHEN THEY ARE INTERACTING. I
WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I -- I DEFINITELY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO FILM, BUT DON'T YOU -- DO YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A -- A GOOD
POLICY FOR THE STATE TO SET A BOUNDARY, A BUFFER ZONE SO THAT THERE AREN'T
UNNECESSARY INTERACTIONS ON THE STREET WHEN THEY GET -- WHEN
SOMEBODY'S GETTING TOO CLOSE. I WAS THINKING SOMETHING LIKE EIGHT
FEET, TEN FEET.
MR. PERRY: SO, I RECALL WE HAD A DISCUSSION AND I
GAVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR SUGGESTION. IN DISCUSSING THAT KIND OF
AMENDMENT OR CHANGE TO THE LAW AS IT IS, IT BECAME QUITE OBVIOUS TO
ME THAT THAT COULD BE USED AS SOME SUBTERFUGE TO -- OR ALLOWING A
PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE LAW THAT WOULD EASILY ENABLE THE POLICE TO, BY
THEIR ACTIONS, OVERDOING IT. YOU ASKED FOR 25 FEET, AND IT WAS QUITE
COMPLICATED TO DETERMINE WHERE WOULD THAT 25 START AND WHERE WOULD
IT END, AND FROM WHAT ANGLE OR AREA WOULD THAT MEASUREMENT BEGIN.
THE BILL, AS IT IS, PROVIDES ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE POLICE OFFICERS
BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, "NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE CONSTRUED
109
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
TO PERMIT A PERSON TO ENGAGE IN ACTIONS THAT PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A CRIME." SO, I THINK
THAT THAT CONCERN IS ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH IN THE BILL.
MR. REILLY: SO IF -- SO IF THE POLICE ARE ON THE
SCENE AND THEY'RE TAKING POLICE ACTION AND A CROWD FORMS AND THEY'RE
FILMING, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE CONVERGING ON THE SCENE WHERE THERE'S
WHATEVER POLICE ACTIVITY IS BEING DONE. IF A POLICE OFFICER MAINTAINS
THAT BUFFER, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER, AND STANDS THERE, DOESN'T TOUCH THE
CAMERA OR ANYTHING, IS THAT CONSIDERED INTERFERING? BUT THEY CAN'T --
SAY THEY -- THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT ANGLE TO FILM WHAT THEY WANT TO.
WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS BILL AS INTERFERING?
MR. PERRY: WELL, I -- I -- I DON'T THINK THAT
ORDINARY ACTION BY THE POLICE WOULD -- COULD BE -- WE COULD -- WE
WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BASED ON THE -- THE LANGUAGE IN THIS
BILL. BUT, I MIGHT -- YOU -- YOU'RE A FORMER POLICE OFFICER.
MR. REILLY: CORRECT, IN YOUR PRECINCT.
MR. PERRY: AND -- THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO, YOU HAVE
SOME KNOWLEDGE I ACCEPT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT I HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED IN MY COMMUNITY, WORKING, BEING INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
THAT THE POLICE MAKE ARRESTS WHEN CITIZENS ARE IN THAT KIND OF A
SITUATION. AND WHAT I NOTICED IS THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS, AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S A TACTICAL TRAINING THAT POLICE RECEIVE, BUT OFTEN,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S A VIDEO CAMERA OR
SOMEBODY IS VIDEO -- NOW THEY SEEM TO BE ALWAYS AWARE OF THAT. BUT
THE POLICE WILL COVER THE ACTION OR THE ACTIVITY BY THE POLICE SO THAT IT'S
110
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SOMETIMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO VIEW AND TO VIDEOTAPE WHAT THE POLICE
IS ACTUALLY DOING, BECAUSE THEY FORM THIS -- THIS WALL TYPE OF BARRIER
AROUND THE SUSPECT AND USUALLY HAVE POLICE POSITIONED SO THEY WILL
KEEP ANY CITIZEN FROM GETTING TOO CLOSE. IF THEY DO THAT AS LAWFULLY AS
THEY CAN AND THEY DO NOT -- BUT THEY DO NOT TRY TO TAKE A PERSON'S
CAMERA OR KNOCK IT FROM THEIR HANDS, IF THEY THINK THAT PERSON MAY
HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING, WHICH IS MY OBSERVATION AND I'M SURE THAT IF
YOU'VE BEEN IN THESE SITUATIONS, YOU MAY HAVE ALSO HAD THAT
OBSERVATION.
SO, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE ACTS AND THE
PRACTICAL SITUATION THAT OCCURS, AND THIS BILL IS -- IS -- THE LANGUAGE WE
HAVE PUT TOGETHER IN THE BEST WAY WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING IN
IT WOULD RESTRICT THE POLICE FROM PROTECTING THEMSELVES WHILE THEY'RE
MAKING ARREST, AND FOR BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE FREELY, NOT WORRIED ABOUT
PEOPLE FEELING THEY HAVE OTHER RIGHT TO -- TO -- TO DISTURB THEIR ACTION.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO ONE LAST QUESTION. SO, I
KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT OGA, RIGHT, OBSTRUCTING OF GOVERNMENTAL
ADMINISTRATION. SO, IF SOMEONE IS FILMING ON THE STREET AND WE HAVE,
YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, A CRIME SCENE, A MALE SHOT ON, SAY, YOU
KNOW, ONE OF OUR STREETS, THAT SINCE THAT -- THAT'S A CRIME SCENE, THEY
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FILM INSIDE A DESIGNATED AREA, CORRECT? SO, IF THE
POLICE ESTABLISH A LINE TO MAINTAIN THAT CRIME SCENE FOR THE
INVESTIGATION, HAVING THEM STAY BEHIND THAT LINE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE;
IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL THAT
111
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
WOULD PROHIBIT THE POLICE FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT FREELY. WHAT WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AS LAWMAKERS AND AS CITIZENS IS ABUSE, ABUSE OF
POWER, VIOLATION OF CITIZEN'S RIGHT, THE RIGHT TO MONITOR TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT AS LONG AS -- SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE POLICE
ACTIVITY. WE'RE NOT SAYING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONDONE THAT AND WE'RE
NOT INVITING PEOPLE TO DO THAT. WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS
LEGISLATION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE STATE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RIGHT SHOULD BE RESPECTED, AND THAT THIS RIGHT IS
SACRED. AND THAT WHATEVER THEY DO AS POLICE OFFICERS, THEY DO IT IN THE
NAME OF THE PEOPLE. THEY DO IT ON THE WORD THAT THEY'RE PROTECTING US.
AND THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD BE DOING THINGS THAT PROTECT US IN EVERY
WAY. ALL OUR RIGHTS SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED. THAT IS THE
GREATEST AUTHORITY AND CHALLENGE TO A POLICE OFFICER. AND IF YOU DON'T
HAVE THE MORAL COMPASS TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT, YOU SHOULDN'T BE
WEARING THE BADGE.
MR. REILLY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PERRY.
ON THE BILL, MADAM SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: ON THE BILL.
MR. REILLY: SO, I AGREE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD
HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILM, ABSOLUTE -- ABSOLUTELY. THE REASON WHY I ASKED
THOSE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE I WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE ALL ON THE
SAME PAGE, BECAUSE, AS OFTEN, MANY TIMES I TALK UP HERE IN -- IN THE
CHAMBER, I SPEAK ABOUT HOW THE WORDS ON PAPER DON'T TRANSITION TO THE
STREET AS THEY SHOULD. SO, THIS PUT A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. OF COURSE WE
DO NOT WANT POLICE OFFICERS GRABBING PEOPLE'S CAMERAS WHEN THEY HAVE
112
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE RIGHT TO FORM -- TO FILM THEM. BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
WERE ALL UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE -- THE PROPER SAFETY PROTOCOLS THAT
HAVE TO BE IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND -- AND THE
POLICE OFFICERS, AND ALSO THIS -- THE POINT ABOUT CRIME SCENES AND
MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T INFRINGE UPON THOSE AREAS WHERE AN
INVESTIGATION IS TAKING PLACE.
SO, MR. PERRY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY
THOSE THINGS, AND THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: THANK YOU, MR.
REILLY.
MR. BARRON.
MR. BARRON: THANK YOU, MR. [SIC] SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER WOERNER: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. BARRON: YOU KNOW, THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY
IN THE 1960'S, TO AVOID POLICE BRUTALITY, IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, IN THE
STATE THAT ALLOWED FOR THEM TO CARRY WEAPONS, USED TO PATROL THE POLICE
AND STAY 25, 30 FEET FROM THE POLICE AS THEY ARRESTED A BLACK CITIZEN.
AND THEY HAD THEIR WEAPONS AND THEY SAID, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS, BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT,
SACRAMENTO AND OTHER PLACES, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO DO THAT. THEY NEVER
INTERFERED WITH THE POLICE AND THEY JUST SAID, YOU CAN ARREST THAT BLACK
CITIZEN, BUT YOU'RE NOT BEATING US. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BEAT HIM. AND
A LOT OF THE BRUTALITY WENT DOWN. AND THEN WHAT THEY DID IS THEY
CHANGED THE LAW TO BAN THE CARRYING OF WEAPONS BECAUSE OF THE BLACK
113
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
PANTHER PARTY, AND THEN THE POLICE BEGAN TO ATTACK THE PARTY.
IN THIS INSTANCE, I NOTICED THE PRIOR SPEAKERS HAD TO
BRING UP HYPOTHETICALS THAT DON'T EXIST. THIS BILL IS NOT BECAUSE THERE'S
A POSSIBILITY THAT WE MIGHT INTERFERE WITH POLICE IN THEIR GOVERNMENTAL
PROCESSES. YOU'RE SO INTO PROTECTING THE POLICE THAT YOU COME UP WITH
HYPOTHETICALS THAT JUST DON'T EXIST. WHAT WE HAVE HAPPENING IS THAT
WHEN POLICE SEE THAT THEY ARE BEING FILMED, THEY ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE
DOING THE FILMING, LIKE THE COPWATCH GROUP AND SO MANY OTHER GROUPS
THAT ARE JUST FILMING, NOT INTERFERING, AND NOT CROSSING NO YELLOW POLICE
CRIME SCENE, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN. THAT'S
JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROTECT AND PUT THE FOCUS ON THE POLICE AND
NOT ON THEIR BRUTALITY AND NOT THEM ATTACKING CITIZENS.
NOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WE HAVE SEEN POLICE
OFFICERS, I'VE SEEN THEM, BREAK CAMERAS, BREAK CELL PHONES AND DO ALL
KINDS OF THINGS IN ORDER TO STOP THEMSELVES FROM BEING FILMED. AND I
WANT TO REMIND YOU, FILMING POLICE OFFICERS BEATING US DOESN'T MEAN
THAT THEY'LL GO TO JAIL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, DO YOU REMEMBER THE FILM OF
RODNEY KING? THOSE POLICE OFFICERS WALKED. REMEMBER THE FILM FOR
MY BROTHER, ERIC GARNER? WATCHED THEM, EVERYBODY WATCHED IT. THEY
WALKED. THEY WALKED.
SO, THIS BILL DOESN'T MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO GO TO JAIL BECAUSE WE SEE IT. I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROTEST
WOULDN'T BE ON THE LEVEL THAT IT'S ON NOW HAD PEOPLE NOT SEEN GEORGE
FLOYD BEING CHOKED TO DEATH FOR OVER EIGHT MINUTES AND SAW THE SMIRK
ON THE OFFICER'S FACE, THE ARROGANCE, THE INSENSITIVITY TO LIFE, BLACK LIFE.
114
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
THE INTENTIONALLY KEEPING HIS KNEE IN HIS NECK EVEN AFTER HE WAS
UNCONSCIOUS. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S MURDER 1, PREMEDITATED, HE
PLANNED ON DOING IT ONCE HE SAW HIM UNCONSCIOUS, AND IT CERTAINLY WAS
INTENTIONAL. THEY'LL DO THAT IN COURT, WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE RACIST
COURTS. BUT FOR US TO HAVE A BILL LIKE THIS THAT DOESN'T EVEN GUARANTEE
THAT POLICE WILL GO TO JAIL EVEN WHEN YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES,
BECAUSE WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM. IT IS NOT A FEW BAD COPS, IT'S NOT
A FEW BAD INDIVIDUALS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN WE SHOW THESE FILMS,
YOU SEE ANY COP -- COP THAT'S WATCHING A BAD COP DO SOMETHING BAD
AND DOES NOTHING, THEY ARE BAD, TOO. IF YOU HAVE A BLUE WALL OF SILENCE
WHEN THEY ARE BRUTALIZING AND MURDERING US AND THOSE COPS THAT SEE IT
DO NOTHING, THEN THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD COP. THERE'S NO SUCH
THING AS A GOOD COP THAT WATCHES A BAD COP DO SOMETHING AND YOU DO
NOTHING. THEN YOU'RE ACTING IN CONCERT. YOU SAW THAT POOR OLD MAN IN
BUFFALO KNOCKED TO THE GROUND, HEAD IN A PUDDLE OF BLOOD. AND HOW
MANY OFFICERS WALKED BY THAT. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE
BEEN CHARGED WITH ASSAULT AND CONCERT, JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
THEY PICK UP OUR YOUTH AND ONE OF THEM DID SOMETHING WRONG, THEY SAY
YOU'RE ALL ACTING IN CONCERT. AND THEN YOU KNOW HOW THEY TELL OUR
COMMUNITY, IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. WELL, COPS, IF YOU
SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. SAY SOMETHING.
SO ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A BILL TO ME THAT'S A NO-BRAINER.
NOT ONLY IS IT A NO-BRAINER, THE NITPICKING AND THE THINGS THAT YOU COME
UP WITH, THE HYPOTHETICALS THAT YOU COME UP WITH, DO PEOPLE CROSS THE
-- THE -- THE CRIME SCENE SOMETIMES? SURE, THAT HAPPENS, AND THE
115
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
POLICE WILL PUT THEM BACK AWAY, BUT PEOPLE DON'T JUMP OVER THE YELLOW
LINES SO THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, INTERFERE WITH THE POLICE DOING THEIR JOB
AND PUT THE CAMERAS IN THEIR FACE, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. AS A MATTER OF
FACT, IN MY BELOVED EAST NEW YORK AND OTHER PLACES, THEY ACTUALLY
ROLLED UP ON PEOPLE ON THEIR STOOP IN THEIR HOUSE, IN FRONT OF THEIR
HOUSE, TOOK THE CAMERA, BROKE IT OR TOOK IT AWAY FROM THEM WHEN THEY
WERE RECORDING. THIS IS WHAT THIS BILL TRIES TO GET AT, SO LET'S GET AT THE
SPIRIT AND THE HEART OF THE BILL AND NOT COME UP WITH THESE
HYPOTHETICALS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE POLICE WHO ARE NOT
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. THEY ARE ATTACKING THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW. AND
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF BILLS THAT WE PUT FORTH SO THAT THESE ATTACKS CAN
BE LESS. AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE THIS BILL DOES THAT, BECAUSE A LOT OF
POLICE DO NOT PAY CONSEQUENCES, EVEN WHEN WE SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. AND I'M SURE MANY OF YOU CAN THINK OF THINGS
THAT YOU'VE SEEN ON CAMERA AND THE POLICE STILL GOT AWAY WITH IT
BECAUSE IT'S A WHOLE SYSTEMIC SYSTEM, A COURT SYSTEM, DAS THAT DON'T
WANT TO PROSECUTE AND JUDGES THAT DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM AWAY, EVEN
AFTER THEY'RE FOUND GUILTY, THEY DON'T GET JAIL TIME.
SO, THIS IS THE LEAST WE CAN DO. COME ON, CUT IT OUT,
ALL OF THESE TECHNICAL THINGS ON THE POLICE. PROTECT THE PEOPLE, NOT THE
POLICE. THE POLICE ARE NOT IN TROUBLE, THE PEOPLE ARE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. MANKTELOW.
MR. MANKTELOW: YES, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD?
116
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. PERRY: I WILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY YIELDS.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THANK YOU, MR. PERRY. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THIS BILL. I'M
WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK WITH MY GRANDSON AND A CAR ROLLS UP ON THE
SIDEWALK, HITS MY GRANDSON. HE'S LAYING ON THE SIDEWALK BLEEDING, AND
THE POLICE OFFICER ROLLS UP TO HELP AT THE SCENE. WE DON'T HAVE AN EMS
OR AMBULANCE THERE AT THE TIME. PEOPLE ARE NOW VIDEOTAPING MY
GRANDSON ON THE GROUND BLEEDING. DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK THE POLICE
OFFICER TO ASK THEM TO STOP FILMING MY GRANDSON?
MR. PERRY: YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK THE POLICE
OFFICER TO DO ANYTHING THAT COMES INTO YOUR HEAD. I'D BE VERY SORRY THAT
PICTURE YOU PAINT FOR US DID INCLUDE YOUR GRANDSON.
MR. MANKTELOW: ME, TOO.
MR. PERRY: BUT THIS BILL DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY
SITUATION LIKE THAT. AND IT DOESN'T HANDCUFF OR PUT ANY ENCUMBRANCES
ON THE POLICE TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AND DO THEIR JOB LAWFULLY. WHAT
YOU -- THE INCIDENT YOU MADE UP WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN A PUBLIC
SPACE, AND ANYBODY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILM IN A PUBLIC SPACE. THIS BILL
DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY BILL SHOULD, OR IF, YOU KNOW,
THAT WOULD REALLY -- THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD EVEN
REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN A PUBLIC -- I BELIEVE PERSONALLY IF IT'S IN THE
PUBLIC EYE, IT CAN BE VIDEOTAPED. IT CAN BE RECORDED PUBLICLY. THERE
117
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ARE CAMERAS ALL OVER THE PLACE. THE POLICE HAVE CAMERAS ON -- ON -- ON
ROOFS AND BUILDINGS, ON LAMP -- LAMPPOSTS, AND THEY VIDEOTAPE ME
EVERY DAY WHATEVER I DO. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD BE FOOLING AROUND ON
YOUR WIFE OR YOUR HUSBAND, IT'S VIDEOTAPED. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING
TO DO WITH WHETHER IT IS OR NOT. IT'S PUBLIC SPACE. ANYTHING THAT
HAPPENS IN PUBLIC SPACE IS SUBJECT TO BEING VIDEOTAPED TODAY. SO I
HOPE THAT NOTHING LIKE THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN WITH YOUR GRANDSON, BUT
THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT AND I DON'T THINK WE COULD PASS A
BILL THAT WOULD EVEN DEAL WITH THAT.
MR. MANKTELOW: ALL RIGHT. SO -- SO IN THIS
SITUATION, THE POLICE OFFICER HAS NO RECOURSE TO ASK SOMEONE TO STOP
TAPING THAT, CORRECT?
MR. PERRY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MONITOR IS A
SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. AND THERE'S NO EXCUSES OR NO REASONS THAT
WE SHOULD TRY TO COME UP WITH TO TAKE THAT RIGHT FROM THE PEOPLE. WE
SHOULD NOT TRY TO FIDDLE AND DIDDLE HERE TO FIND A REASON WHY THE POLICE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO STEP ON THAT RIGHT. THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.
POLICE OFFICERS ARE HIRED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, ENFORCE THE LAW. IF IT'S A
RIGHT, IT'S A LAW. BUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO RESPECT IT. SO THIS BILL WILL
CODIFY IT SO THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE NOBODY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL COURT TO
SAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OR YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE
LAW OF NEW YORK STATE, SO THAT IF THE POLICE TRANSGRESSIONED ON THAT
RIGHT, YOU HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION TO SEEK REDRESS AS A FREE CITIZEN WITH
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND ONE OF YOUR FREE EXPRESSIONS IS
THE ONE TO MONITOR MISBEHAVIOR BY YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. THANK
118
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
GOD FOR THE GOOD POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE MORAL COMPASS. BUT IF -- AS
I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, YOU SHOULD NOT WEAR THE BADGE.
AND -- AND YET, THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SWEAR YOU IN ON THE OATH TO
PROTECT THE PEOPLE, IF THEY FIND -- AND THEY SHOULD HAVE A TEST FOR YOUR
MORAL COMPASS BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH POLICE ENFORCEMENT IN
AMERICA. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH POLICE ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE WE
GOT POLICE BRUTALITY, KILLING PEOPLE. EVEN LAST YEAR MY GRANDDAUGHTER
POSTED THAT, FOR EVERY DAY LAST YEAR EXCEPT FOR 26 DAYS, SOMEBODY WAS
KILLED BY POLICE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT'S THE NATION WE
ARE.
WE NEED TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. THE RIGHTS OF ALL
NEW YORKERS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND I JUST CALL ON MY
COLLEAGUES TO USE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE VOTE FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. THERE SHOULD BE NO
INFRINGEMENT OF THAT RIGHT, AND WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE IT AND WE SHOULD
NOT ENABLE IT. WE SHOULD DO NOTHING TO LET THOSE WHO SEEK TO VIOLATE TO
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) IN COMFORT.
I'M TIRED AND I'M FED UP. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY, MR. SPEAKER.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
NOTHING ELSE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PERRY TO CLOSE.
MR. PERRY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL
WILL CODIFY INTO LAW AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY AFFIRM BY STATUTORY ENACTMENT
THE RIGHT OF ALL NEW YORKERS TO RECORD POLICE ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE
119
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
STATE. A QUICK SCAN OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE PAST WEEK WILL HAVE
HIGHLIGHTED THE BENEFIT AND THE GREAT NEED FOR NEW YORKERS TO BE
ASSURED THAT THEY, INDEED, HAVE A RIGHT TO MONITOR AND RECORD POLICE
ARRESTS AND OTHER POLICE ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN PUBLIC SPACES ON OUR
PUBLIC STREETS. THESE AMATEUR VIDEOGRAPHERS OFTEN SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT
ON POLICE BRUTALITY AND THE ABUSES OF POWER BY THOSE WHO ARE SWORN TO
PROTECT US AND WEAR THE HONORABLE BADGE OF A POLICE OFFICER, WHICHEVER
DEPARTMENT YOU WORK FOR. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO (UNINTELLIGIBLE) POLICE
ACTIVITY ARE OFTEN SUBJECT TO HARASSMENT AND ARE FALSE ARRESTS. INDEED,
THEY DO SO BY PUTTING THEMSELVES AT GREAT PHYSICAL RISK TO THEMSELVES.
AND THAT SHOULD NEVER BE THE CASE. BUT THE NEED TO CODIFY THIS RIGHT TO
MONITOR IS PARAMOUNT.
AND I THANK MY -- THE SPEAKER AND THOSE WHO WORKED
HARD FOR THIS -- THE LANGUAGE TOGETHER AND THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PASS THIS BILL. IN SO MANY OF THE RECORDINGS WHICH CAPTURE BLATANT
POLICE MISCONDUCT, THE OFFICERS ON SCENE OFTEN TURN THEIR ATTENTION TO
THE INDIVIDUAL RECORDING THE ACTIVITY IN ORDER TO HINDER THE RECORDING TO
UNLAWFULLY SEIZE AND DESTROY THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR WRONGDOING, AND
ULTIMATELY, FREQUENT ARRESTS OF INDIVIDUALS ON TRUMPED-UP CHARGES.
THEY END UP DOING THAT. I HAVE SEEN IN COUNTLESS RECORDINGS OVER THE
LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHERE POLICE OFFICERS APPROACHED AND IMPEDED
CITIZENS WHO WERE DOING NOTHING MORE THAN EXERCISING THIS RIGHT, IN NO
WAY INTERFERING WITH THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. I HAVE SEEN RECORDINGS
WHERE POLICE OFFICERS HAVE SHINED LIGHTS ON -- ON -- ON CAMERA LENSES
OF THOSE TRYING TO RECORD. I'VE SEEN WHERE THEY FORMED A HUMAN WALL, A
120
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
SHIELD, TO BLOCK THE CAMERA'S VIEW. OR WORSE, I'VE SEEN POLICE
PHYSICALLY KNOCK THE CAMERA OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE MONITOR. MY
PERSONAL CONVICTION IS THAT ANYONE WITH A BADGE WHO GOES TO SUCH
GREAT LENGTHS TO AVOID BEING FILMED, RECORDED, NEEDS TO HAVE MORE THAN
ONE CAMERA SHINE ON THEM. THIS BILL WILL CODIFY THE RIGHT OF NEW
YORKERS TO FILM AND LET POLICE OFFICERS KNOW THAT WHEN THEY ACT IN
DISOBEDIENCE TO THEIR OATH AND SOMEONE FORFEIT THAT RIGHT, THEY WILL BE
BREAKING THE LAW. WHILE THE BILL DOESN'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PENALTY, IT
AFFIRMS THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO GO TO COURT AND SEEK REDRESS FROM THE
OFFICER WHO IS OFTEN INDEMNIFIED BY THE EMPLOYER. SO AT THE END OF THE
DAY, WE MAY ALL END UP PAYING BECAUSE THE INDEMNITY TO THE OFFICERS
COMES OUT OF OUR POCKETS AS TAXPAYERS. THIS IS -- THIS BILL WILL GIVE US
THE INCENTIVE TO CONTINUE TO BEAT DOWN THAT WALL OF BLUE SILENCE, AND
SEND A MESSAGE TO OUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT, WE WANT YOU TO BE ALERT
WHEN YOU SERVE. WE WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THE OATH YOU TAKE TO
PROTECT THE PEOPLE, AND WE WANT YOU TO RESPECT AND HONOR THE RIGHTS OF
THE CITIZENS. AND YOU WILL HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT AND THANKS OF ALL
CITIZENS WHO FEEL FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MR.
PERRY, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 30TH
DAY.
121
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE BY -- THE VOTE ON RULES REPORT NO. 70. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL.
ANY MEMBER WISHING TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO
CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MS. BICHOTTE TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL, THE NEW YORK -- THE NEW YORKER'S RIGHT TO
MONITOR ACT WHICH GRANTS CIVILIANS WHO ARE NOT UNDER ARREST THE RIGHT
TO RECORD CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, AND THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THAT RECORDING AFTER THE INCIDENT. TIME AND
TIME AGAIN WE SEE HOW INDIVIDUALS ARE MISTREATED BY THE POLICE, AND IF
IT WERE NOT FOR VIDEO RECORDINGS, SOME INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE NOT
RECEIVED JUSTICE. JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, A VIDEO RECORDING SURFACED OF
THE HEINOUS MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY AND THEN AGAIN GEORGE FLOYD.
IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE THAT WAS CAPTURED BY ORDINARY
CIVILIANS, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN THE REAL STORY. AND QUITE FRANKLY,
JUSTICE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN AN OPTION TO BE SERVED. WE WOULD NOT
EVEN BE HERE, BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO WITNESS THE MURDER OF GEORGE
FLOYD. WHAT --THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. SURELY, WE WOULD HAVE
BEEN TOLD THAT THEY RESISTED ARREST, AND THOSE FAMILIES MIGHT NOT HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO SEE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THEIR LOVED ONES. IN AN
INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN BUFFALO JUST LAST WEEK, LAW ENFORCEMENT
122
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
OFFICERS PUSHED A 75-YEAR-OLD MAN, CAUSING HIM TO BLEED FROM HIS EAR.
THEY IMMEDIATELY DENIED RESPONSIBILITY AND SAID HE SLIPPED. THEN
CAME THE IRREFUTABLE TRUTH: THE VIDEO PROOF. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
THERE'S NO VIDEO? IF -- IF THIS IS JUST WHAT WE ARE SEEING WHEN IT'S
CAPTURED, HOW MANY CASES LIKE THAT ARE THERE WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE
FORTUNE OF BEING VIDEO RECORDED. HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE FORCED TO
STOP RECORDING OR TOLD TO BACK UP LIKE A REPORTER IN BROOKLYN THIS
WEEKEND WHO WAS ALSO SHOVED AND CORNERED SO SHE COULD NOT TAPE THE
ARREST OF A PEACEFUL PROTEST -- PROTESTOR? NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE
AFRAID TO VIDEOTAPE AN INJUSTICE AS IT OCCURS IN THERE.
SO I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. RAMOS.
MR. RAMOS: MR. SPEAKER, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA OF COLOR HAVE FOUND THAT A SIMPLE DEVICE LIKE A CELL
PHONE THAT RECORDS VIDEO IS A LIFE-SAVING DEVICE. AND THEY'VE OPENED
UP THAT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AND WE HAVE SEEN VIDEO AFTER VIDEO OF
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AND IT'S BECOME SOMETHING ESSENTIAL.
ANYBODY WHO HAS A YOUNG -- BLACK, BROWN, YOUNG PERSON IN THEIR
HOME IS GOING TO TELL THEM, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR VIDEO. IF YOU GET
STOPPED BY THE POLICE, PLEASE PUT IT ON. IT'S A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS THAT
WE HAVE TO TELL OUR CHILDREN THIS, THAT THIS MUST BE DONE. THIS BILL
AFFIRMS THAT ABSOLUTE RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE A VIDEO. TO TAKE THAT
VIDEO AND PROTECT OURSELVES. WE HAVE SEEN IN THE MANY CASES OF
POLICE ABUSE HOW IN SOME CASES IT'S -- IT HAS SAVED LIVES BECAUSE POLICE
123
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
HAVE BACKED OFF BECAUSE THE VIDEO WAS THERE. IN OTHER CASES IT HAS
BROUGHT JUSTICE BECAUSE IT HAS EXPOSED WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE
BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY, HAD THERE NOT BEEN A VIDEO RECORDING THERE.
SO I PROUDLY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. SOMETHING THAT
BRINGS TRANSPARENCY. AND -- AND BY THE WAY, I WANT TO ADD THAT BEING
AN OFFICER FOR 20 YEARS, I WELCOMED PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPE. THAT PROTECTS
ME. AS A POLICE OFFICER SOMETIMES YOU GET UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST YOURSELF. AND IF YOU ARE DOING THINGS RIGHT, THERE SHOULD BE NO
REASON WHY YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY STANDING DOWN THE
BLOCK OR STANDING AROUND THE PERIMETER, OUTSIDE THE CRIME SCENE,
TAKING A VIDEO. THAT PROTECTS ME. THAT SHOWS THAT I DID MY JOB RIGHT
IF I AM DOING IT RIGHT.
SO I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAMOS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WALKER.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I USED TO BE THAT PERSON WHO WALKED
THROUGH THE STREETS AND WOULD RECORD LAW ENFORCEMENT MAKING ARRESTS,
AND I WOULD BE TOLD, STAND OVER THERE BEFORE WE ARREST YOU FOR
INTERFERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION. OR THEY'D TELL THE
PERSON, BECAUSE SHE'S STANDING HERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST
YOU. AND -- BUT I'VE JUST RECENTLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE A -- A REAL
BENEFIT IN THE 73RD PRECINCT. WE WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS OFFICER
WHO WAS RAVAGING OUR COMMUNITIES. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL HE WAS
124
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RECORDED SHOVING A YOUNG PROTESTER DOWN AT THE BARCLAY CENTER THAT
HIS AGGRESSION WAS ON TAPE. AND TODAY HE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
73RD PRECINCT, TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMPLAINED
ABOUT HIM IN THE PAST. AND WE WERE JUST NOTIFIED THAT HE WILL BE
ARRESTED.
SO, FOR ME, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS JUST
AS IMPORTANT AS EVERY OTHER PIECE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON
TODAY. I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR AND I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WRIGHT.
MS. WRIGHT: TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY. AND I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS BILL.
THIS BILL IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT IS A NECESSARY TOOL FOR US IN PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR FRIENDS AND OUR COMMUNITIES. AS BEEN
IDENTIFIED ALREADY, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO TRUST THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNITY FOR POLICE. THIS -- OUR -- THE COMMON TRUST THAT MAY HAVE
EXISTED BEFORE HAS BEEN ERODED, AND IT'S BEEN ERODED BECAUSE OF ABUSE,
BRUTALITY, VIOLENCE AND MURDER. MURDER THAT'S BEEN ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND
THE SHIELD. AND AT THIS MOMENT WE ARE TAKING STEPS SO THAT WE CAN
BRING SOME LIGHT, SHED SOME LIGHT ON ALL OF THE WORK THAT IS HAPPENING
IN OUR COMMUNITY. THOSE THAT ARE DOING WELL, AS OUR -- SOME OF OUR
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, THEY WILL BE PROVEN AND SHOWN TO BE DOING WELL,
AND THOSE WHO ARE DOING WRONG WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND -- AND
125
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
IDENTIFIED FOR EXACTLY WHO THEY ARE AS WELL. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
US TO REBUILD BRIDGES, FOR US TO REBUILD TRUST WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, AND
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS OPEN COMMUNICATION. AND WE NEED TO
PROTECT THOSE WHO ARE BRINGING THAT INFORMATION FORWARD FOR US. OF THE
ENTIRE LIST OF CASES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE SPONSOR WHEREIN THE
VIDEOTAPING PERSON WAS ATTACKED BY POLICE, THE ONE THING THAT WASN'T
MENTIONED THAT WAS THAT OFTENTIMES THE PERSON TAKING THE VIDEO IS LATER
ARRESTED SO THAT THEY CAN OBTAIN THE -- THEY CAN HAVE CUSTODY OF THOSE
VIDEOS. THEY CAN DESTROY EVIDENCE. THEY CAN DESTROY CELL PHONES.
THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. WE'VE GOT TO CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE IT IS
KNOWN WHERE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE SAFE MONITORING
WHAT IS HAPPENING OUT IN THE OPEN. AS BEEN IDENTIFIED ALREADY, THAT'S A
PUBLIC SPACE. AND THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FILM WHAT IS HAPPENING IN
PUBLIC SPACE. AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SETTING UP ANY ARTIFICIAL
BOUNDARIES FOR WHERE PEOPLE MUST STAND (UNINTELLIGIBLE) REACH FROM.
THEREFORE, I AM VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND I'M VERY
HAPPY WITH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WRIGHT IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. WALCZYK.
MR. WALCZYK: MR. SPEAKER, BLACK LIVES MATTER.
I VOTE YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. WALCZYK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. REILLY.
126
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I JUST WANT
TO JUST -- JUST PUT IT ON RECORD, EVEN THOUGH I DID IT DURING THE DEBATE, I
AM FOR THIS BILL. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LET PEOPLE KNOW
THAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE IF SOME
PEOPLE MISUNDERSTOOD WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTIONS I ASKED, BUT I
JUST WANT TO REAFFIRM EVERYBODY AND REASSURE THAT I AM VOTING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. REILLY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. KIM.
MR. KIM: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I JUST WANT TO
COMMEND THE SPEAKER FOR THIS BILL, AND ALSO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT
AS WE SPEAK THERE IS NONSTOP UNWARRANTED SURVEILLANCE OF EVERYDAY
PEOPLE BY THE POLICE IN THE FORM OF SIDEWALK VIDEOS AND -- AND TOWERS
THAT LOOK OVER US EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND THEY GET TO WATCH US WITHOUT
ANY KIND OF OVERSIGHT. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT DATA GOES. I
DON'T KNOW EVEN KNOW WHO'S LOOKING. BUT I KNOW THEY ARE -- THEY ARE
BREAKING THE -- OUR CIVIL RIGHTS EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND FOR THE FIRST TIME
IN OUR HISTORY, EVERYDAY FOLKS HAVE SOME SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE CAN PUSH BACK. THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR
OWN HANDS TO HAVE AN IMMEDIATE SENSE OF JUSTICE. AND -- AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL, TO ME, IS ABOUT. AND JUST GETTING A LITTLE PIECE OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS BACK IN OUR LIVES EVERY SINGLE DAY.
SO THIS -- THIS IS -- LIKE MY COLLEAGUE HAD SAID EARLIER,
THIS IS A NO-BRAINER. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE DEBATING THIS BILL. THANK
127
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. KIM IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. MOSLEY TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. MOSLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AS MUCH
AS I -- I GIVE PRAISE TO OUR SPEAKER AND OUR MAJORITY LEADER AND TO OUR
CONFERENCE AND TO MY COLLEAGUES THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THIS BILL, ALONG
WITH PROBABLY THIS PACKAGE, WOULD NOT PROBABLY -- WOULDN'T BE IN
EXISTENCE IF NOT FOR TWO PEOPLE. THAT WAS RAMSEY ORTA, WHO WAS THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHO WOULD VIDEO RECORD A MEMBER OF THE NYPD
STRANGLE ERIC GARDNER BACK IN 2014. AND THEN DARNELLA FRAZIER, A
17-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WHO JUST TWO WEEKS AGO HAD THE
AUDACITY AND BRAVERY TO RECORD OFFICERS WHO WERE LITERALLY CHOKING THE
LIFE OUT OF GEORGE FLOYD IN A PUBLIC AND RECORDED LYNCHING THAT SPREAD
THROUGHOUT THE NATION AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IF THOSE TWO
INDIVIDUALS DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY -- AND MAY I ADD, MR. ORTA PAID A
-- A VERY DEAR PRICE FOR THAT THROUGH THE RETRIBUTION OF OTHERS IN HIGHER
PLACES -- BUT IF THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAD NOT RECORDED THOSE TWO
EVENTS, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE PASSING THIS PACKAGE OF BILLS. THAT'S A
FACT. THAT'S NOT A BELIEF.
SO I COMMEND THE SPEAKER AND I -- I COMMEND THE
BILL SPONSOR FOR PUTTING THIS BILL AND HAVING THE FORESIGHT TO PUT THIS BILL
BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT COULD BE EASILY OVERSEEN HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO RECORD THE ACTIVITIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT -
WHETHER THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING OR THE WRONG THING - BUT
128
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
NONETHELESS, HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE, ONE,
THAT OFFICERS ARE DOING THEIR JOBS CORRECTLY; BUT, TWO, THAT THOSE WHO ARE
NOT DOING THEIR JOBS CORRECTLY AND WHO ARE ABUSING THE VERY PEOPLE THAT
THEY'VE BEEN SWORN TO PROTECT, TO BRING THEM TO JUSTICE.
SO I GLADLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RODRIGUEZ.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE AND TO ECHO MUCH OF THE SENTIMENTS IN
TERMS OF THANKING THE BILL SPONSOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. IN A FREE AND OPEN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE HAVE TO AFFIRM
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. YOU MAY PRESUME THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
TAKE A -- A VIDEO, BUT AS WE HAVE HEARD, THE REPERCUSSIONS OF DOING SO
HAVE -- CAN BE TRULY, TRULY DEVASTATING TO BOTH YOURSELF PERSONALLY. BUT
WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT A TOOL, A LIFE-SAVING TOOL THIS VIDEOTAPING HAS
BECOME IN TERMS OF NOT JUST DETERRING POLICE MISCONDUCT, BUT ALSO
UNCOVERING IT AND TO BEGIN NATIONAL MOVEMENTS TO TRY AND CHANGE THE
WAY THAT THAT POLICING HAPPENS. JUST TO MENTION SOME OTHER NAMES,
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT ERIC GARDNER, BUT TO REMIND PEOPLE ABOUT PHILANDO
CASTILE AND SANDRA BLAND AND, MOST RECENTLY, GEORGE FLOYD. YOU
KNOW, THESE ARE INSTANCES WHERE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, A VIDEOTAPE OR
VIDEO RECORDING OF SOME TRAGEDY, YOU KNOW, HAS REMINDED US OF NOT
JUST THE NEED TO REFORM, BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOOLS THAT HAVE
129
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
BEEN USED TO ENABLE THIS REFORM.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE SPONSOR. IT'S --
IT'S -- IT'S VITAL THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE KEEP THIS TOOL IN PLACE TO
UNCOVER AND -- AND TO PUSH FORWARD, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGES THAT ARE
NECESSARY IN OUR SOCIETY, AND THIS ALL WILL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO DO
THAT ARE NOT PENALIZED AS A RESULT.
SO AS A RESULT, I'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND --
AND THANK THE SPEAKER FOR MOVING THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RODRIGUEZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. COLTON.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I HAVE
BEEN VOTING ON BILLS BASED UPON WHETHER OR NOT THEY FURTHER
TRANSPARENCY AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY FURTHER MAKE THE JOB OF JUSTICE
MORE FAIR AND MORE OPEN AND MORE CLEAR. THIS BILL BASICALLY AFFIRMS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT EVERYONE HAS TO TAKE A VIDEO. AND I,
THEREFORE, SUPPORT THIS BILL. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS ANTI-POLICE. I'M A
LITTLE DISTURBED BY SOME OF THE ANTI-POLICE RHETORIC I'VE HEARD IN THE
CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING THIS BILL. BUT I THINK WHEN YOU PHOTOGRAPH,
WHEN YOU TAKE FILMS OF SOMETHING THAT IS GOING ON, IT HAS THE
POSSIBILITY OF BOTH PROVING THAT THERE WAS NO WRONG DONE AS WELL AS
PROVING THAT THERE IS WRONG DONE. AND FRANKLY, THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE
AWARE THEY'RE BEING FILMED MAY MAKE THEM MORE CAREFUL NOT TO DO
WRONG. TO BE MORE CAREFUL TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURES EXACTLY.
SO I THINK THIS BILL HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT. I DON'T THINK
130
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
IT INTERFERES WITH POLICING. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT INTENDED TO. IT'S CLEAR THAT
YOU CANNOT INTERFERE WITH -- WITH AN ARREST OR WITH AN OFFICIAL POLICE
ACTION. BUT I THINK THAT IT -- IT BASICALLY AFFIRMS THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO
BE ABLE TO FILM WHAT IS GOING ON, AND FRANKLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FILM, YOU KNOW, WHEN POLICE ARE DOING THINGS
RIGHT. MAYBE VERY OFTEN THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. MAYBE THAT HAPPENS --
FILM THINGS THAT POLICE OFFICERS DO THAT ARE VERY GOOD AND PROTECT
PEOPLE AND HELP PEOPLE. AND MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED.
SO I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND I AFFIRM AND VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. COLTON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. FAHY.
MS. FAHY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I, TOO, RISE TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. I COMMEND THE SPONSOR, I COMMEND THE
SPEAKER, AND I COMMEND, BY THE WAY, THE -- THE STRONG BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT ON WHAT I HOPE WILL BE ON THIS BILL AS WELL AS ON SO MANY BILLS
TODAY. A PICTURE DOES PAINT 1,000 WORDS. AND IN THIS CASE, OFTEN WE
HAVE SEEN A VIDEO AND -- PAINTING 1,000 -- MORE THAN 1,000 WORDS,
GOING BACK TO RODNEY KING IN 1991. THAT REALLY BEGAN TO TRANSFORM
THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT OF REALLY TRYING TO SEEK SOME RACIAL JUSTICE, REALLY
TRYING TO SEEK SOME REFORMS, VERY NECESSARY POLICE REFORMS. AND WE
MORE THAN KNOW THAT HAD WE NOT HAD THAT VIDEO OF GEORGE FLOYD, WE
MIGHT NOT BE HERE TODAY. AND I THINK IT IS THAT VIDEO THAT REALLY WAS
ABLE TO CAPTURE A PICTURE, CAPTURE A MOMENT THAT I HOPE -- I HOPE IN THE
131
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
END HE WILL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN BECAUSE WE WILL MAKE SOME VERY
TRUE, SERIOUS AND LONG OVERDUE REFORMS.
SO, YES, THIS BILL AFFIRMS THE ABILITY TO RECORD ACTIONS,
AND I COULD NOT BE -- AND I DO THINK IT'S WELL-INTENDED. JUST A COUPLE OF
DAYS AGO IN MY COMMUNITY UP AT STUYVESANT PLAZA, A LOVELY VIDEO WAS
RECORDED OF A GUILDERLAND POLICE OFFICER TALKING TO A YOUNG BOY WHO
WANTED TO SEE THE INSIDE OF HIS POLICE CAR AND TALK ABOUT HOW HE
WANTED TO DREAM ABOUT GROWING UP TO BE A POLICE OFFICER. AND THAT
WAS A YOUNG AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAN. IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL EXCHANGE.
AND SO LET'S HOPE THAT WE'LL SEE MORE OF THOSE TYPES OF POSITIVE
EXCHANGES GOING FORWARD.
I DEDICATE MY VOTE TODAY TO MARK FREY AND MOUSA
KANAY, TWO YOUNG BOYS THAT I HAVE MENTORED FOR DECADES, WHO HAVE
BEEN VERY MOVED BY THE EVENTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. AND I
THANK, AGAIN, THE BILL SPONSOR AND SO MANY FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY
HAVE DONE THESE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, AND I HOPE WILL MAKE CHANGES
FOR DECADES TO COME.
AGAIN, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. CRUZ TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. CRUZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU KNOW, I
WANT US TO -- I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL AND THE
SPEAKER FOR -- FOR GETTING US TO THE POINT WE'RE AT. IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO
132
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE FOR A VERY LONG TIME NOT ONLY WERE
WE NOT BEING HEARD AS A COMMUNITY, BUT I DON'T THINK WE DREAMED OF
THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT THIS KIND OF BILL HAS NOW. I THINK WE ALL
UNDERSTAND - NOT TO QUOTE THE FRESH PRINCE OF BEL-AIR - BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT HE SAID RECENTLY WAS, "IT'S NOT THAT THIS COUNTRY IS BEING
MORE RACIST, IT'S THAT IT'S FINALLY BEING FILMED." AND I THINK THERE'S
SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT THE FACT THAT WAS IT NOT FOR THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE CELL PHONES AND THAT WE HAVE CAMERAS, LOTS OF WHAT WE SEE TODAY,
LOTS OF WHAT WE KNOW AS MURDERS - BECAUSE THEY WERE MURDERS -
WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN CAPTURED. AND SO THINK ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER
TIMES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN INTERACTIONS. AND I WANTED YOU TO THINK
ABOUT IT IN BOTH WAYS. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY WHERE FOLKS HAVE BEEN HURT, WHERE FOLKS HAVE BEEN
MURDERED, WHERE FOLKS ARE -- ARE MAKING ALLEGATIONS THAT MAYBE ARE
NOT TRUE. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING FOR BOTH SIDES TO BE OKAY WITH.
BECAUSE THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE NEED TRANSPARENCY IF
WE'RE GOING TO GET AS CLOSE AS WE CAN TO HAVING A MORE JUST SOCIETY.
AND THE IDEA THAT I, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, OR ANYBODY IN MY
COMMUNITY, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECORD WHAT A POLICE OFFICER IS
DOING, AN ENCOUNTER SHOULD BE PROTECTED. AND SO I THINK MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT SHOWS -- IT SHOWS US THAT AS A
COMMUNITY WE'VE COME A LONG WAY TO TRULY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT
ABOUT BEING AGAINST THE POLICE, THIS IS ABOUT BEING FOR THE COMMUNITY.
UNDERSTANDING THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO RECORD AND A
133
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING.
AND WITH THAT, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. CRUZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. THE FOLLOWING
REPUBLICANS ARE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL: MR. LIPETRI, MR. BARCLAY, MR.
FRIEND, MR. LALOR, MR. MONTESANO, MR. SCHMITT, MR. FITZPATRICK, MR.
DESTEFANO, MR. RA AND MR. PALUMBO.
THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED. THANK
YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL ON MR. GOODELL FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL FOR THE
PURPOSES OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. AND THANK YOU, MAJORITY LEADER, FOR A
PRODUCTIVE DAY ON SOME INTERESTING AND SOMEWHAT CHALLENGING BILLS
SOMETIMES. IT WAS GOOD TO SEE THAT WE HAD A LOT OF SUPPORT IN A LOT OF
DIFFERENT AREAS.
134
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.
MR. GOODELL: I -- I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE A
REPUBLICAN ZOOM CONFERENCE COMMENCING AT 6:35 P.M. IN OTHER
WORDS, IN TEN MINUTES, A REPUBLICAN ZOOM CONFERENCE. THANK YOU,
SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: REPUBLICAN ZOOM
CONFERENCE IN TEN MINUTES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, DO WE
HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING AND/OR RESOLUTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE
HOUSEKEEPING.
ON BILL NO. A8091, ON BEHALF OF MR. MAGNARELLI THE
ASSEMBLY BILL IS RECALLED FROM THE SENATE.
THE CLERK WILL READ THE TITLE OF THE BILL.
THE CLERK: AN ACT TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY
TAX LAW.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THE VOTE BY WHICH THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE. THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE
VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
THE CLERK WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE
RECEIVED AND ADOPTED.
135
NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 8, 2020
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS
SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE 7:30 WAYS AND MEANS MEETING THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT
9:30 A.M., IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY RULES AT 10:00 A.M.
I NOW MOVE THAT THE ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL
10:30, TUESDAY, JUNE THE 9TH, TOMORROW BEING A SESSION DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE ASSEMBLY STANDS
ADJOURNED.
(WHEREUPON, AT 6:25 P.M., THE HOUSE STOOD ADJOURNED
UNTIL TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH AT 10:30 A.M., THAT BEING A SESSION DAY.)
136