BILL NUMBER: S4149
SPONSOR: SALAZAR
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law and the family court act, in
relation to statements of those accused of crimes to enhance criminal
investigations and prosecutions and to promote confidence in the crimi-
nal justice system of this state
 
PURPOSE:
To enhance the integrity of the criminal legal system and to prevent
coerced or false confessions.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1. Amends subdivision 3 of section 60.45 of the criminal proce-
dure law to mandate that all interrogations by a public servant, when
such public servant is aware or has reason to suspect the person inter-
rogated committed a crime under investigation, be video-recorded in
their entirety. The failure to do so shall result in the exclusion of
any confession, admission, or other statement from use as evidence in
any trial or pretrial hearing.
Section 2. Amends subdivisions 5-a and B of section 305.2 of the family
court act to comply with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section
60.45 of the criminal procedure law as amended in this act.
Section 3. Amends subdivision 3 of section 344.2 of the family court act
to comply with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 60.45 of the
criminal procedure law as amended in this act.
Section 4. Establishes an effective date of 90 days after the act
becomes law.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
New York State is third in the country in exonerations, with at least
319(1). At least fifty-three of the convictions in cases in which the
individuals were later exonerated were caused by coerced, false
confessions(2). Coerced, false confessions have caused 27% of the wrong-
ful convictions in the cases that ended in DNA exonerations. According
to The Innocence Project, videotaping interrogations from beginning to
end, with the camera recording both law enforcement and the suspect, is
a reform that can reduce wrongful convictions caused by coerced, false
confessions(3). The 2017 legislation, section 1 of part VVV of chapter
59 of the laws of 2017, mandating police videotaping of interrogations
in custodial interrogation was a step in the right direction. However,
the 2017 legislation made exceptions for homicides, sex offenses, and
drug cases, whereas these are the cases where such protection is most
needed. Many well-known wrongful convictions which turned into exonera-
tions would not have been prevented under the 2017 law. For example,
Huwe Burton, a sixteen-year old African American youth from the Bronx,
spent 17.9 years wrongfully imprisoned for allegedly killing his mother
before he was exonerated. His three-hour interrogation, in which the
police pressured him, scared him, and repeatedly denied his request to
speak to his father, was not recorded. Subsequent to that, Huwe docu-
mented the confession in writing and through videotaping. He later
recanted and stated that he was coerced, but was convicted anyway(4).
Frank Sterling, a twenty-five year old white man from Monroe County,
spent 18 years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA. After eight
hours of interrogation, Sterling confessed. Subsequent to that, he
agreed to record a videotaped confession, getting details wrong: the
crime scene, where the BB gun was, while not knowing how many times the
victim was shot. His recantation did not matter(5). Sterling died after
only nine years of freedoms(6). Jeffrey Deskovic, a white sixteen-year
old from Peekskill in Westchester County, spent 16 years in prison for
murder and rape prior to being exonerated by DNA testing. His coerced,
false confession, obtained after 6 1/2 to 7 hours, was not
video-taped(7). In the "Exonerated Five" case, five African-American and
Latinx youths were wrongfully convicted of rape, ranging from fourteen
to sixteen years old, spent between 6.6 to 12.3 years prior to being
exonerated(8). Recently, a sixth Central Park Defendant, Steven Lopez, a
fifteen year old Latinx youth from Manhattan, who served 2 1/2 years in
prison, w as exonerated (9)
Mandating that custodial interrogations be recorded without exception
does not merely protect the accused. It also protects honest law
enforcement from false allegations of coercion. It makes for better
evidence. It could also result in less pre-trial litigation over volun-
tariness while facilitating the disposition of more cases through plea-
bargains. But, beyond that, it protects society: aside from the devas-
tating impact wrongful conviction has on the accused person and his or
her family, each time the wrong person is convicted, the person who
actually committed the offense is better able to strike again. The actu-
al perpetrator in the Deskovic case, Steven Cunningham, killed a second
victim 3 1/2 years after his first murder.(10). Mark Christie, the actu-
al perpetrator in the Sterling case, killed four year old Kali Ann Poul-
ton approximately 6 years later(11). Serial killer Matias Reyes commit-
ted a slew of rapes and a murder after raping the victim in the Central
Park Five case.(12)
There is also a fiscal impact. Burton was paid $11 million through a
Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit; Sterling received an aggregate of
more than $10 million; Deskovic was paid $24 million; the "Exonerated
Five" were paid $41 million dollars from civil rights lawsuits, and an
additional $3.9 million dollars from New York State. So far, in total
compensation to exonerees in New York State in recent years, in cases
where false confessions had resulted in wrongful convictions, at least
$258,907,000 has been paid out by local governments and the State. While
the exonerees unquestionably deserve that compensation - as there is no
amount of money that could make being wrongfully imprisoned worth it- it
would be far better to not wrongfully convict individuals and for
governmental entities to not have to pay compensation.
Further, if just one wrongful conviction caused by a coerced, false
confession is prevented, that would cover the cost of the recording
equipment. Video-taping all custodial interrogations will make it possi-
ble to review interrogations to ensure that all statements were made
voluntarily; that a suspect truly has guilty knowledge rather than is
being given details by law enforcement whether accidentally or inten-
tionally; will both prevent and detect threats and false promises; will
provide an objective account of an interrogation not subject to the
limits of memory, while preventing law enforcement from leaving unfavor-
able facts out of their testimony.
This bill seeks to prevent wrongful convictions caused by coerced, false
confessions. Therefore, having exceptions for certain types of felonies
and misdemeanors makes no sense. The bright line exclusionary rule is
necessary because otherwise the door is open to subterfuge; to unscrupu-
lous law enforcement officers trying to squeeze into exceptions rather
than to rigorously follow the law that a bright-line rule requires. In
sum, it will breathe more life into the 5th Amendment.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
SENATE:
2023-2024: S5876 (Salazar) - Referred to Codes
ASSEMBLY:
2023-2024: A5284 (Walker) - Referred to Codes
 
STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined. It is clear this bill will save municipalities and the
state significant sums of money.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect 90 days after it becomes law.
1 National Registry of Exonerations  
HTTPS://BIT.LY/3UB2MLL
2 National Registry of Exonerations  
HTTPS://BIT.LY/3NQOGWQ
3 The Innocence Project
 
HTTPS://INNOCENCEPROJECT.ORG/FALSE-
CONFESSIONS-RECORDING-INTERROGATIONS
4 National Registry of Exonerations
 
HTTPSWWWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/
EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX?CASEID=5485
5 National Registry of Exonerations  
HTTPS://BIT.LY/3FWO7GB
6 Democrat and Chronicle  
HTTPSWWWW.DEMOCRATANDCHRONICLE.COM/
STORY/NEWS/LOCAL/BLOWLAW-ANDDISORDER/
2017/07/02/SENECA-SOUTH-CAROLINA/446593001/
7 National Registry of Exonerations  
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL
/EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX7CASEID=3171
8 National Registry of Exonerations
 
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/EXONERATION/
PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX?CASEID=3610
 
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/
EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX?CASEID=3578
 
HTTPSWWWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/
EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX?CASEID=3423
 
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/
EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASMCASEID=3761
 
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/ SPECIAL/EXONERATION/PAGES/ CASEDE-
TAIL.ASPX?CASEID=3604
9 National Registry of Exonerations  
HTTPS://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/SPECIAL/
EXONERATION/PAGES/CASEDETAIL.ASPX? CASEID=6357
10 WFMYNEWS2  
HTTPS://WWW.WEMYNEWS2.COM/ARTICLE/
NEWS/KILLER-CONFESSES-TO-REPORTER/83-4031E33790
11 Oregon Advocates.com  
HTTPS://WWW.OREGONADVOCATES.ORG/GEO/
SEARCH/ITEM.311583
12 The Cut  
HTTPS://WWW.THECUT.COM/2019/06/THE- ATTACKERS-OTHER-VIC-
TIMS-IN-THE- CENTRALPARK-FIVE-CASE.HTML

Statutes affected:
S4149: 60.45 criminal procedure law, 60.45(3) criminal procedure law