Enacts the "criminal court opinion transparency act"

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Michael Gianaris says this is needed

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.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.