BILL NUMBER: S660A
SPONSOR: GIANARIS
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law and the civil practice law
and rules, in relation to detaining persons for longer than twenty-four
hours
 
PURPOSE:
This act shall ensure one's pre-arraignment detention does not exceed 24
hours without individualized explanations for why such a delay in
release was unavoidable and actually necessary.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of the bill amends § 140.20 of the criminal procedure law to
add a new subdivision 9 which defines "without unnecessary delay" as it
relates to pre-arraignment detention.
Section two of the bill amends § 7009 of the civil practice law and
rules by adding a new subdivision (f) which presumes that any pre-arr-
aignment detention exceeding 24-hours is avoidable, unnecessary and
unlawful, unless clear and convincing evidence of compelling facts and
circumstance is provided to demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable
and actually necessary for each individual petitioner named in the writ.
Section three of the bill sets the effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
In June 2020, hundreds of people in New York City alone were detained
for over 24 hours without being brought before a judge after being
arrested in a series of protests in light of the murder of George Floyd
and the Black Lives Matter movement. When public defenders petitioned
for their releases, New York City Criminal Court Judge Burke ruled the
State was permitted to hold detainees for more than 24 hours due to "a
civil unrest crisis within the overarching Covid-19 crisis." As a
result, people arrested during the protests were forced into cramped
quarters indefinitely, posing an unnecessary risk to their health.
The dire situation of New Yorkers in detention more than 24 hours before
arraignment continues without abatement. In 2026, people arrested in New
York City have routinely been held in NYPD custody, on low-level
offenses, for more than 24 hours before arraignment, in clear violation
of C.P.L. §140.20(1) and People ex rel. Maxian o/b/o Roundtree v. Brown,
164 A.D.2d 56 (1st Dept. 1990), aff'd, 77 N.Y.2d 422 (1991) ("Round-
tree"). In 2025 and 2026 delays have been the most acute in Brooklyn,
where the NYPD has been carrying out Operation Fare Play, an initiative
designed to crack down on minor subway crimes. For example, on February
13th, 128 people were held for over 24 hours after their arrest, includ-
ing a 61-year-old man held 54 hours for entering a subway exit gate;
another Brooklynite was held for 52 hours for double parking. The crisis
in arraignment delays has led to numerous healthcare emergencies,
including a woman's live, open-court labor and birth, while handcuffed,
after she was held for 28 hours on May 15th, 2026 and on the death of 33
year old Zamiqua Miller on April 12th, 2026, who died on the floor of a
jail cell in Kings County Central Booking after being held for 36 hours
on misdemeanor charges. Indeed, since March 2025, five New Yorkers have
died in custody while awaiting their arraignment for over 24 hours; all
were charged with low-level offenses. The protections in this bill would
prevent New Yorkers from experiencing unlawfully lengthy detention in
the future, unless acceptable individualized reasons for the delay are
provided.
This bill will codify the 1991 New York Court of Appeals decision in
Roundtree v. New York, which set a 24-hour rule for pre-arraignment
detention. The Court reasoned that preliminary police duties which must
be completed pre-arraignment can easily be accomplished within 24 hours,
unless an acceptable reason for the delay is provided. Specifically,
this bill would establish that any pre-arraignment detention exceeding
24 hours from arrest to arraignment constitutes an "unnecessary delay"
under the law, until and unless the presumption is rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence that such a delay was actually necessary for each
individual petitioner identified in a writ of habeas corpus. By codify-
ing the 1991 Court of Appeals case, we ensure uniformity across the
state in compliance with the Court's ruling that custodial arrest past
24 hours is presumptively unnecessary and a violation of our state law.
Codification ensures that there is clarity for both judges and petition-
ers when these proceedings are initiated and statutory authority makes
the initiation of such proceedings more accessible for people across our
state.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2024: S449 (Gianaris) PASSED SENATE / A505 (Gonzalez-Rojas) died in
codes
2023: S449 (Gianaris) PASSED SENATE / A505 (Gonzalez-Rojas) died in
codes
2022: S1184-A (Gianaris) PASSED SENATE / A9734 (Gonzalez-Rojas) died in
codes
2021: S1184-A (Gianaris) PASSED SENATE / A5264-C (Richardson) ordered to
third reading
2020: S8707-A (Gianaris) PASSED SENATE / A10884-A (Richardson) died in
codes
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None to the state.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

Statutes affected:
S660: 140.20 criminal procedure law, 7009 civil practice law
S660A: 140.20 criminal procedure law, 7009 civil practice law