BILL NUMBER: S3864AREVISED 5/22/26
SPONSOR: GIANARIS
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the publication of
opinions rendered in criminal causes
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To increase transparency of New York legal decisions in criminal
proceedings by reporting on the feasibility, costs, and implementation
options for publishing trial-level criminal court decisions and
suppression decisions specifically.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of the bill amends section 212 of the judiciary law to
require the Chief Administrator of the Courts to submit a report to the
Governor and Legislature by January 15, 2027, evaluating whether
publishing additional trial-level criminal court decisions and collect-
ing more court data would improve the practice of law and public under-
standing of criminal courts. The report would also have to assess the
resources needed to support expanded publication or data collection
efforts and include recommendations for legislative and administrative
actions that should be taken.
Section two of the bill sets forth the effective date.
 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND AMENDED VERSION
This version narrows the bill from a broad statewide mandatory case
publication requirement to a reporting requirement directing the court
system to evaluate the feasibility and resource needs associated with
publishing trial-level criminal court suppression rulings, to collect
related data, and to submit findings and recommendations to the Governor
and Legislature.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
Public access to criminal court decisions is a basic part of an account-
able legal system. The purpose of this bill is to determine how New York
can make meaningful publication happen in a fair, practical, and cost-
effective way.
Research indicates that most trial-level criminal court decisions in New
York are not publicly available: only an estimated 0.5% to 6% of written
criminal court decisions are published, leaving the vast majority
unavailable to the public. The Office of Court Administration has sepa-
rately estimated that the original, broader publication legislation
could involve approximately 180,000 decisions each year.
This bill responds to that gap by requiring the Office of Court Adminis-
tration to report on the feasibility, costs, and implementation options
for publishing a high-value category of decisions: suppression rulings.
Suppression rulings are where trial judges decide what the Constitution
means in everyday encounters between police and the public. These
constitutional rulings decide whether police may search a home, stop a
person on the street, pull someone from a car, interrogate a suspect,
rely on a warrant, controvert a warrant, or use evidence seized during
an arrest. In practical terms, they define what police are allowed to do
in real cases.
The Legislature believes that public access to these rulings would help
lawyers, judges, lawmakers, reporters, researchers, and the public
understand how criminal law is actually being applied across New York.
It would also help identify differences across counties and courts,
improve the practice of law, and support informed public oversight of
the courts.
The bill asks the Office of Court Administration to evaluate publication
of suppression rulings because that category is both important and like-
ly a small portion of all criminal court decisions. The Legislature
expects the report to identify the real volume of suppression rulings
and provides a clear estimate of the resources needed to publish them.
The report should also address both written and oral suppression
rulings. Some suppression rulings are issued in writing; others are
delivered orally from the bench. A useful report should account for
both. The Legislature expects the report to identify how many
suppression rulings are written, how many are oral, and what practical
options exist for publishing oral rulings, such as publishing tran-
scripts or mandating all these decisions be made in writing.
The Legislature also expects the report to address both administrative
and legislative paths to publication, including where statutory changes
would be beneficial for setting standards and where administrative
action is needed to allow for flexibility regarding changing technolo-
gies.
The original, broader legislation included important privacy protections
for public opinions, acknowledging the implementation of the Clean Slate
Act. The report should address privacy with equal attention.
The report should include cost and feasibility assessments for both
suppression-only publication and for wider publication of trial-level
criminal court decisions. Those assessments should explain the basis for
any projected costs and distinguish one-time implementation costs from
recurring annual costs. These assessments should also address the need
for any staffing recommendations, if any. Finally, the report should
also estimate the cost of requiring that suppression decisions be made
in writing.
The bill was drafted in consultation with the Unified Court System.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2025: S3864 (Gianaris), reported, committed to finance / A4674
(Burdick), referred to judiciary
2024: S9674 (Gianaris), PASSED SENATE / A10394 (Wallace), referred to
judiciary
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
To be determined.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect 180 days after it becomes law.

Statutes affected:
S3864: 212 judiciary law, 212(1) judiciary law, 212(2) judiciary law, 432 judiciary law, 160.50 criminal procedure law, 10.40 criminal procedure law, 10.40(2) criminal procedure law
S3864A: 212 judiciary law, 212(1) judiciary law