BILL NUMBER: S1671A
SPONSOR: SALAZAR
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the correction law and the civil service law, in
relation to discipline of certain persons for serious misconduct
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To establish a new and more accountable procedure for making determi-
nations regarding allegations of serious misconduct on the part of
certain NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS") employees.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 adds a new section 12 to the correction law with the following
subsections:
Subsection 1(a) defines "serious misconduct" as an act of excessive use
of force, an act of false reporting regarding one or more acts of exces-
sive use of force, an intentional failure to report an act of excessive
use of force, an inappropriate sexual relationship or contact with an
incarcerated person or a person under community supervision, or an
intentional failure to report an inappropriate sexual relationship or
contact with an incarcerated person or person under community super-
vision;
Subsection 1 (b) establishes that for the purposes of this bill, employ-
ee shall mean anyone employed by the department with the title
"correction officer" or "correction sergeant."
Subsection 2 provides that when an employee is alleged to have committed
an act of serious misconduct, the disciplinary procedure that may be
applied shall be the procedure established in this new section 12 of the
correction law.
Subsection 3 establishes the categories of employees subject to the
procedure established in this section.
Subsection 4 establishes the disciplinary procedure to be followed when
a covered NYS DOCCS employee is alleged to have engaged in an act of
serious misconduct. Covered employees are afforded full due process
rights in this procedure, including a reasonable period of time to
obtain representation, to be provided with a copy of the charge or
charges, to answer the charge(s) in writing, to summon witnesses on
their behalf, to have a hearing before a hearing officer who shall make
a recommendation to the commissioner who would then make the final
determination, and to receive a transcript of the hearing without
charge. The burden of proof in the hearing shall be on the department
and shall be by a preponderance of evidence.
Subsection 5 states that an employee charged with serious misconduct may
be subject to a range of permissible penalties.
Subdivision 6 establishes procedures following the hearing if the
employee is acquitted or found guilty.
Subsection 7 provides a right to appeal a finding via the procedure set
forth in Article 76 of the NY Civil Procedure Laws and Rules.
Subsection 8 provides that the commissioner may terminate the employment
of an employee who is convicted of a crime while employed by the depart-
ment whenever the commissioner determines the continued employment of
such person would not be in the best interest of the department.
Subsection 9 provides reporting requirements.
Section 2 adds a new paragraph (i) to civil service law section 50 (4)
adding a new category to the list of individuals whom the state civil
service department or a municipal civil service commission may refuse to
examine, or after examination refuse to certify, specifically, an indi-
vidual who has been disciplined for an act of serious misconduct pursu-
ant to correction law section 12.
Section 3 makes a conforming change to civil service law section 61 (1).
Section 4 amends correction law section 112 (1) to add that the commis-
sioner has authority to place reasonable limits or restrictions on items
an employee may bring into a correctional facility or community super-
vision office that could pose a threat or be used as a weapon.
Section 5 provides for the effective date.
 
AMENDED VERSION:
The "A" print reflects the following changes:
*Amends the definition of serious conduct to remove "introduction of
contraband" and include "intentional failure to report an inappropriate
sexual relationship or contact with an incarcerated individual or person
under community supervision."
*Changes the applicability of the bill from all employees in a DOCCS
facility to correction officers and correction sergeants
*Adds deadlines for when the hearing should commence after the initial
allegations, and when the recommendation ought to be made by the hearing
officer following the hearing, with certain exceptions.
*Establishes that the burden of proving serious misconduct shall be by a
preponderance of evidence.
*Removes provisions relating to removal with/without pay pending the
hearing or determination of charges, as that is covered under a separate
section of the law.
*Amends the provision that allows the commissioner to terminate employ-
ment based on the employee being convicted of a crime, to only apply to
convictions that occur while the employee is employed by the department
whenever the commissioner determines the continued employment of such
person would not be in the best interest of the department.
*Adds reporting requirements.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
This bill places final decision-making authority regarding discipline of
DOCCS staff for acts of serious misconduct in the hands of the DOCCS
Commissioner. Currently, such authority rests with outside arbitrators.
Under the existing procedure, DOCCS has rarely been able to terminate a
correction officer DOCCS alleges to have used excessive and unjustified
physical force against an incarcerated person. That is, even when DOCCS
has concluded an employee has violated the law by, for example, using
excessive and unlawful force, they almost always fail to be able to
terminate such an employee. This is an untenable situation.
This bill was first introduced early in 2024. Since that time the neces-
sity of enacting the reforms contained in this bill has become even
clearer. In December 2024 a group of DOCCS staff members at Marcy
Correctional Facility killed Robert Brooks in a vicious beating within
an examination room in the prison infirmary, a beating caught without
the knowledge of the staff members involved on video. The widely shared
video shows multiple officers directly involved in physically attacking
Mr. Brooks, who was handcuffed behind his back and who appears at some
point in the process to be completely nonresponsive. The video also
depicts other staff members, uniformed officers or supervisors as well
as civilian medical personnel, standing by, observing the brutal beat-
ing, and not intervening to stop the attack or to assist Mr. Brooks. In
fact, it appears from the video that none of the DOCCS staff present
more than a dozen individuals appeared to think anything out of the
ordinary was occurring. That is, they appear to have believed they would
never be held accountable for their actions. Several of the officers who
appear to have been involved in beating Mr. Brooks were already facing
civil legal actions based on allegations of other incidents of excessive
force. This incident raised significant concerns as to how it could be
that state employees could engage in the conduct shown in the Brooks
videos and the incident brought to light the serious failures and inef-
fectiveness of the existing employee disciplinary procedures within
DOCCS. The need for change in regard to staff discipline in DOCCS is
plain and obvious.
This bill was drafted in response to an in-depth investigation by the
Marshall Project regarding the existing disciplinary system for NY's
prison staff. In a series of reports first published in the New York
Times in May 2023, a stark picture emerged of a staff disciplinary
system that is essentially completely broken and ineffective. The Mars-
hall Project found, for example, that over a twelve-year period, DOCCS
"tried to fire officers or supervisors the agency accused of physically
abusing prisoners or covering up their misconduct in 290 cases. But in
only 10% of those cases did the officers get fired." The existing arbi-
trator system provides that the union representing an accused officer
essentially has veto power over the selection of the arbitrator for the
case.
As shocking examples of the dysfunction of the existing system, the
Marshall Project reported:
An officer who broke his baton hitting a prisoner 35 times, even after
the man was handcuffed, was not fired. Neither were the guards who beat
a prisoner at Attica Correctional Facility so badly he needed 13 staples
to close gashes in his scalp. Nor were the officers who battered a
mentally ill man, injuring him from face to groin. The man hanged
himself the next day. The investigation also revealed numerous instances
of significant assaults by staff on incarcerated individuals where DOCCS
did not even charge any officers with misconduct.
This bill, by eliminating the arbitrator system only in cases of allega-
tions of serious misconduct, directly addresses one of the reasons for
the extraordinarily low rate of successful disciplinary cases even when
DOCCS believes there was serious misconduct. This bill also addresses
the so-called a "blue wall" by which officers protect each other by
either providing false information or simply declining to report abuse
they have witnessed. This is accomplished bythe definition in the bill
of "serious misconduct", which includes - in addition to acts of exces-
sive force - an act of false reporting regarding one or more acts of
excessive use of force and an intentional failure to report an act of
excessive use of force.
The failure of the existing staff disciplinary procedure to appropriate-
ly address acts of serious misconduct has far-reaching and devastating
consequences. First, people are injured by this serious misconduct, some
quite severely. Second, the ability of officers to use violence with
impunity has a ripple effect of encouraging more violence from staff and
violence from incarcerated individuals. Third, the existing dysfunc-
tional system costs New York State large sums of money in settlements
and court verdicts against DOCCS for excessive and unlawful force by
staff against incarcerated individuals.
Enactment of this bill would be an important step forward in holding
staff accountable if they engage in serious misconduct, in making NY's
prisons safer, in ensuring that the human rights of individuals who are
incarcerated in NY are safeguarded and protected, in helping individuals
engage in positive rehabilitation and transformation while incarcerated,
and in saving the state significant sums of money.
 
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT
A prison system that is unable to hold staff members who engage in seri-
ous misconduct accountable - including those who use excessive force or
fail to report the use of excessive force - is a system that, at least
tacitly, views excessive and unjustified violence by state employees
against individuals who are incarcerated as acceptable. This has a far-
reaching impact, causing immediate harm to individuals, as well as
establishing an atmosphere of lawlessness withing prisons, and subject-
ing individuals and their families to extended trauma. As people of
color continue to be significantly disproportionately represented in the
prison system, this type of governmental official abuse and lack of
accountability hits Black and brown people and communities the hardest.
Enacting this bill would ensure a measure of justice and dignity for
incarcerated individuals and their loved ones.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
SENATE:
2025: S1671 (Salazar)- Referred to Crime Victims, Crime & Correction
2024: S8980 (Salazar) - Referred to Crime Victims, Crime & Correction
ASSEMBLY:
2025: A5355 (Tapia)- Referred to Correction
2024: No Same as
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
Enactment of this biii will result in significant savings for the State
as the procedures established with this legislation will result in NY's
prisons being safer and in a reduction in the number of successful and
expensive lawsuits against the State based on instances of excessive and
unjustified force by staff against incarcerated individuals.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall become effective on the thirtieth day after it shall
become law, provided, however, that section 1 of the act shall take
effect upon the expiration of the current collective bargaining agree-
ment that governs impacted employees of the department.
Santo, Neff, and Meagher, "Guards Brutally Beat Prisoners and Lied About
It. They Weren't Fired,"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/nyregion/ny-prison-guards-brutality-
fired.html
Neff, Santo, and Meagher, " How a 'Blue Wall' Inside N.Y. State Prisons
Protects Abusive Guards,"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/nyregion/ny-state-prison- guards-a-
buse.html
Santo and Neff, " 'A Crazy System': How Arbitration Puts Abusive Guards
Back in New York Prisons,"
https://nysfocus.com/2023/12/14/arbitration-prison-abuse-corrections-
officers
Santo and Neff, " How We Investigated Abusive Prison Guards Getting
TheirJobs Back in New York, "
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/12/14/new-york-prison-guard-
arbitration-how-we-investigated
Santo and Neff, " We Spent Two Years Investigating Abuse by Prison
Guards in New York. Here Are Five Takeaways,"
https://www.themarshallproject.org/
2023/05/22/new-yorkprison-corrections- officer-discipline-findings

Statutes affected:
S1671: 50 civil service law, 50(4) civil service law, 61 civil service law, 61(1) civil service law, 112 correction law, 112(1) correction law
S1671A: 50 civil service law, 50(4) civil service law, 61 civil service law, 61(1) civil service law, 112 correction law, 112(1) correction law