New York Lawmakers Repeal Law That Kept Police Disciplinary Records Secret
New York lawmakers chipped away at each other's arguments in floor debates Tuesday.
June 09, 2020 at 06:35 PM
4 minute read
The New York Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to repeal a contentious state law used to keep police disciplinary records secret, one in a slate of police reforms that gained momentum following outrage over the death of George Floyd.
Lawmakers began to vote on the package of reforms this week after nationwide protests over police brutality, which have sparked larger conversations on systemic racism and the role of law enforcement in American society.
The repeal legislation passed by the state Senate does away with section 50-a of New York's Civil Rights Law, a decades-old statute used to put a cover over officers' disciplinary records.
The bill repeals the law, but stipulates carve-outs that would prevent the release of officers' medical history, their home addresses and cellphone numbers. That information would be redacted under the bill.
The state Assembly had not passed the measure by press time Tuesday, but the chamber is poised to green-light the measure.
"So I think hiding behind the curtain because they were treated in a different way is over now," said state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins in a radio interview.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he will approve any legislation that reforms or repeals the 50-a statute.
Supporters of the repeal argue it protects officers with a history of misconduct from public accountability.
Enacted in the 1970s, the section was approved to protect against defense attorneys putting officers through harassing cross-examinations based on irrelevant or unproven material in their personnel files, according to a 2018 report from the state's Committee on Open Government.
Due to the law's interpretation and its application in the courts, what began as a narrow exception to the state's public records law transformed into "a virtually impenetrable" statutory bar for the release of information, the committee argued.
"The courts' broad reading of §50-a deprives the public of information essential to democratic oversight and lends a counter-productive shield of opacity to the State and local police agencies," the committee said in its report.
Police organizations have raised opposition to the repeal measure, saying in a memo that the protections keep them safe.
They argued that opponents to the law favor releasing all complaints, including ones that were not substantiated. The groups wrote that those complaints would expose an officer to "unavoidable and irreparable harm to reputation and livelihood."
Katherine Rosenfeld, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, described the expected repeal as a "huge step" in changing the special treatment of those covered by 50-a. But she said there are some concerns about the actual accessibility to the records, even with the change.
With the repeal measure poised to pass the Legislature, Betsy Ginsberg, director of the Civil Rights Clinic at the Cardozo School of Law, said it remains to be seen if cities and state agencies will provide the disciplinary record or resist disclosure.
New York lawmakers chipped away at each other's arguments in floor debates Tuesday.
State Sen. Fred Akshar, a Republican whose district covers Binghamton, raised the issue of unsubstantiated complaints during a debate over the bill Tuesday.
State Sen. Jamaal Bailey, a Democrat and a sponsor of the legislation, countered by suggesting that an unsubstantiated complaint against an officer doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it could not be proved.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCourt System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250