Enacts the "Lieutenant Joseph Banish mental health act" which establishes a law enforcement peer support program to provide confidentiality for communications arising out of law enforcement peer support counseling; defines terms; provides exceptions for when a peer support communication may be disclosed.
This bill (S 8198) requires New York courts to check specific records before making custody decisions in child custody cases involving orders of protection. Courts must review sex offender registry data, protection order records, related court decisions, and warrants. The bill modifies Family Court Act section 842 to mandate these checks and repeals an outdated section of the same law. It directly affects family courts, parents involved in custody disputes with protection orders, and children in those cases. The law aims to ensure custody decisions consider relevant safety information during protection order proceedings.
This bill allows criminal defendants in counties outside New York City to have their cases moved to a mental health court in a neighboring county, with consent from the defendant, both district attorneys, and the receiving court. It requires a 5-day waiting period before the transfer takes effect unless the receiving court agrees to accept the case sooner. The law specifically prohibits moving family offense cases involving household members to veterans treatment courts under this provision. This primarily affects defendants facing criminal charges who qualify for specialized court programs in adjacent jurisdictions, streamlining access to mental health-focused sentencing.
Requires that following the acquittal after trial or the sentencing of any defendant for a felony, the district attorney, or their designee, shall mail a written summary of the disposition of such felony to any victim who was not present at the time that the defendant was sentenced or acquitted after trial.
This bill (S 6735) changes courtroom procedures for joint trials involving two or more defendants. It clarifies that when defendants are tried together, they are treated as a single party for peremptory challenges (challenges to remove jurors without cause). Specifically, a peremptory challenge must be permitted if a majority of defendants agree, or if there is a tie (e.g., a 1-1 split with two defendants). The bill directly affects defendants in joint criminal trials by standardizing how challenges are handled during jury selection. It is procedural in nature, focusing on trial mechanics rather than substantive policy.
Directs the superintendent of state police, in consultation with the office of children and family services, shall develop, maintain and disseminate to all members of the state police written policies and procedures, regarding child-sensitive arrest practices.
This bill clarifies when courts can issue protective orders to shield jurors' personal information in criminal cases. It allows courts to restrict disclosure of juror names and addresses to anyone except attorneys, if they find good cause to believe a safety threat exists. Courts must consider specific factors like whether the defendant previously harassed jurors, the severity of charges (e.g., large criminal enterprises), or extensive pretrial media coverage. The law directly affects jurors in high-risk criminal trials by prioritizing their safety through concrete, limited disclosure restrictions.
Provides incarcerated individuals with access to breast cancer screening and diagnostic testing in accordance with certain nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines.
Amends certain provisions requiring the termination of connected vehicle services upon the request of a domestic violence victim; requires the provider of the connected vehicle services to terminate such services within two days of receiving a request; directs the office for the prevention of domestic violence to make information available on their website; defines terms.
S 2674 clarifies when courts can issue protective orders to shield jurors' personal information. The bill allows courts to restrict disclosure of jurors' names and addresses (only to attorneys) if they find good cause to believe threats exist to jury safety or integrity. Key factors courts must consider include whether the defendant has threatened past jurors, the severity of charges (especially for large criminal enterprises), and extensive pretrial media coverage. This directly affects jurors and potential jurors by enhancing their privacy and safety protections during criminal trials.
