March 24, 2026 · Codes · 3,715 words · 8 speakers · 163 segments
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on Codes for those who watch every week. You may notice that we are in a different background and room. We have several committees that are happening this morning that have gone over, so we have adjusted the rooms. But we are happy to be joined today by members of the majority. We have with us Senators Kavanaugh, Senator Bailey, Senator Roxanne Passaud, Senator Brisport. And we also have voting sheets of constitute the quorum. We are also joined by the ranker on the Senator Colombo as well as Senator Murray from the minority. I would offer the ranker an opportunity.
Senator Gallon.
Oh, sorry. Senator Galvin. I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
Senator Gallen. How can I slip up here? I would offer our ranker, Senator Palumbo, to offer any opening remarks.
I'm just ready to proceed, Chairman. It's nice to be in a different room once in a while, but can't wait to be back in the room.
Yes. Yes, indeed. Okay, excellent. So we are going to start with Senate print 1004 by Senator Brook.
An act amend the criminal procedure law and the mental hiding law.
This bill passed the Senate previously and is there any discussion?
Good.
Bill moving.
Just quick comment.
I know that there's.
The intentions of this bill are certainly very laudable. I've been involved in this just because I went through like the mechanism network that is being employed. But certainly I'm on the mental health committee and I'll certainly speak with the senator group about my concerns.
Concerns. But this makes sense.
To not hold someone who is incapacitated for prolonged period of time. It's an expense to our counties. It's a very significant expense. It's not really. It's not appropriate to the person that's being held and confined that they need to get the services they need. So I'll speak with her about what I think might be a better way to reset. Happy meeting, but thank you for the ability to indulge in your comment.
Thank you. Senator Palumbo. Senator Murray.
No.
Seconded.
Oh, okay.
So. Moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any in the negative or without recommendation?
No, please.
Senator Palumbo, in the negative. The bill I'm without recommend and Senator Galvin without recommendation. The bill is referred to Finance. Next bill is Senate print 1055 by
Senator Serrano and act amend the executive law.
Is there any discussion?
Move the bill.
Moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Brisport. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any of the negative or without recommendation. Senators Colombo, Mary and Galvin. In the negative, the bill is reported. Next is Senate Print 1664 by Senator Harkham.
An act amend the criminal procedure law.
This is also a bill that has passed the Senate unanimously. Is there any discussion? Moved by Senator Murray. Seconded by Senator Colombo. All in favor? Signified by saying aye. Any of the negative or without recommendation the bill is reported. And next we have Senate print 1694 A by Senator Scoopus.
An act to amend the penal law.
Another bill that has passed the Senate unanimously. Is there any discussion?
Move the bill.
Moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Prasad. All in favor? Signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any of the negative or without recommendation, the bill is reported. Next we have Senate print 2494 by Senator Bernardez.
An act amend the civil rights law.
Another bill unanimously passed by the Senate. Is there any discussion?
Move the bill.
Moved by Senator Kavanaugh. Seconded by Senator Bailey. All in favor? Signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any of the negative or without recommendation, the bill is reported. Next we have Senate Print 3519 by Senator Garcello Stanton.
An act to amend the penal law.
You notice a theme. Another bill unanimously passed in the Senate state. Is there any discussion?
Move the bill.
Moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Passard. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any of the negative or without recommendation. The bill is reported. Next we have Senate print 4188B by Senator Comrie.
An act to amend the penal law.
Is there any discussion? Moved by Senator Palumbo. Seconded by Senator Brisport. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. A negative or without recommendation. The bill is recorded. Next we have Senate print 4525 by Senator Bailey.
An act amend the criminal procedure law.
Senator Bailey.
So thank you, Mr. Chair, for putting this on the agenda.
This is.
Sometimes good things come out of the sense. This came out of a court of appeals dissent by my. I want to brag a little bit, but my former law school professor, Judge Jenny Rivera.
And it speaks to making sure that
language access should not be a bar towards your rights to justice. It's simple. This has passed the Senate. The executive vetoed it before, but we are hopeful that in days and times where we are having more conversations about language access, as she will see, provided that it's also passing the assembly again, that this is the right way to go. And thank you for putting this in the agenda.
Thank you, Senator Bailey. Is there any further discussion? Senator Lisbon?
I Just want to thank you. And thank you, Senator Bailey, for this bill. I once saw an issue while visiting family court where a defendant accidentally included themselves because the prosecutor has put a double negative in the line of interrogation. Didn't translate the right way. And I just appreciate you looking out for people that are not English as their primary language in our court system.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Brisport. Any further discussion? Is there a motion moved by Senator Prasad? Seconded by Senator Brisport. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Neither negative or without recommendation. Without Senator. Senator Gavin. Without recommendation. Senator Murray and Colombo. In the negative, the bill is reported. Next is Senate Print 4776 by Senator Ryan.
An act amend the legal law.
Is there any discussion? Is there a motion moved? Moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Murray. All in favor, signify by saying II Any in the negative or without recommendation. The bill is reported. And next we have a new bill to our agenda. Senate Print 5110A by Senator Scarcellis Fanton.
An act to amend the penal law.
I got to speak to the sponsor and some of the individuals that are impacted by this. This bill would place some of the same protections for HPD inspectors that is given to some other folks in a similar space. These are people that walk in, they're public servants trying to do their job and are often met by some hostilities. And so we thought it would be appropriate to begin the discussion and move this bill. Happy to answer any further questions.
What's the.
What's the current charge of any. For someone committing this act?
So mine.
I have a. I always have an issue with increasing life penalties on people, especially in felony.
Yep.
So I want to know what's there
before I agree to support this bill.
So my understanding was that assault of an HPD inspector would be a misdemeanor. This would make it a low level felony. But it's a. Same protection afforded to EMS workers and other similarly situated public. Public servants. But your point is well taken on the increase. So any further discussion?
I was just going to say, like, again, I. I'm always reticent to increase penalties. Shouldn't say always to. To increase penalties to felony level. But. But.
But I.
The safeguard that I do see here is that there are similarly situated individuals that are performing a public good. This is something that. I'm more than happy to advance this through committee and have further discussions about it. But I do see it as meritorious because they do face. These inspectors do face some opposition that have nothing to do with the Subject matter of their job and folks shouldn't
be subjected to that. So thank you, Senator Bailey. Any further discussion?
If it's deadly, they have a higher penalty.
Sometimes they face it.
And I say yes. Okay. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? Move the bill moved by Senator Prasad. Seconded by Senator Colombo. All in favor, signify by saying aye, the negative or without recommendation. Senators. Senators Kavanaugh. Without recommendation. Senators Briscoe. In the negative. The bill is reported. Next is Senate Print 7236 by Senator D'.
Amis.
An act of men, the penal law.
Is there any discussion? Move the bill moved by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Brisport. All in favor, signify by saying II Me in the negative or without recommendation.
Opposed.
Senator Galvin in the negative. Senator Colombo, that recommendation. The bill is reported. That was our penultimate bill. We are Now Senate Print 80 21c by Senator Hinchey.
An act of amend, the executive law.
Is there any discussion?
Can someone explain the bill?
Okay, so currently, Senator, there is a tattoo policy. Pardon me, bullying for state police. This would incorporate tattoo policies for state and local or, excuse me, local law enforcement.
What's the policy
like?
No hatred, type of like covering up tattoos that may be considered extreme or racist. And that allows for. I think it's one ring tattoo
and
then nothing on the face, hands and neck.
Yeah, I think the sponsors intended.
It's depression of all kinds of speech. Both sides of the idea.
Yeah.
The sponsors intent, as I understand it, and as Demar was explaining, is for a certain category of tattoos that can be interpreted as extremely offensive. That there's some uniform policy on how to deal with that. What needs to be covered, what can't be.
Here's my own concern. Yep. It's objective.
Right.
It's subjective. Who's going to determine what's offensive and who's going to determine what's not offensive. And then are there any particular first amendment issues here? What may be offensive to me may not be offensive to them. It's a little confusing to me.
Damar and then Senator Murray.
So what? The way I was reading it was
not that you can't have the tattoo,
but you have to cover it while you're working.
And the exception would just be face and neck, where that would be more difficult to cover.
But someone has to determine whether it's offensive or not. And who's to determine who determines whether it's offensive or not?
In my. My interpretation is that. Would it be the commissioner, DSP and
docs.
Here's my understanding. Many Law enforcement agencies and corrections just had a ban on tattoos and being visible. So in state police, for instance, their summer uniform, they wear short sleeves. If you had a tattoo from here down, you'd have to get rid of it or they wouldn't even hire you. So it was. So this starts from that point of view and society's changed with tattoos. Laborers come forward and say, hey, this is ridiculous. Right. Everybody's got a tattoo. And so this now removes the subjectivity of an agency saying not at all, period. And has them first say you can do it, but here's how. So it becomes oh, of course the agency, but the agency still does. And the agency can say no right now. This moves it a little bit, a little bit forward. And it came about as a result of the state police case. I forget the exact circumstances, but some tattoo that was non offensive that was visible, that they looked to terminate the trooper for in the summer and they didn't know it. And the troopers PB that they brought in action. And this is what ultimately about as I understand it. But nonetheless my point is it's completely subjective by agency already.
Right.
This becomes more permissive.
So.
So maybe we need to know to get rid of it completely if it's adaptive. Well, to me it's troubling that yes and no. But I don't necessarily make a determination as to what's offensive.
But do you want a law enforcement officer have something to come up, something racist on his forehead?
I do not want.
That's correct. And I and I'm okay with subjectivity when it comes to limiting things like that.
But obviously your body wants correction. Tough as a word. Swastik in the forehead. But there are other things that may be offensive to people that are not offensive to me. And there is my concern. How do we determine what's. What's. What's offensive. Right.
Well, it's in the eye of the receiver. I mean but. But the swastik's got not mean. But for some people it's not offensive to them. Sort of for some definition of what
you're saying, you're underscoring exactly what the problem I have with it with the policy in general.
Well also uses a religious thing in
the Hindus and Sikh society, so. Right. But the thing is that anytime you have laws that are dependent on someone's subjectivity, it's problematic. It's a problem with the First Amendment. It's a problem with many other bills. Who's going to determine what's offensive? So I didn't know this was A policy. Maybe I'll push a bill to get rid of the policy completely.
I don't know.
But I don't.
Well, I think we're already past that. And now I think this bill is trying to get some arms around it. But before there was prohibitions.
Yeah. And I'll say before you jump into limbo, I take the First Amendment issue seriously and I think this sponsor, an attempt to create a uniform policy around the state also wants that to be constitutionally sound. And so I think there will be an opportunity to talk through what those standards might be so that we're not infringing on those first amendments right now. It's hodgepodge. It depends on where you are in the state. This is an attempt to say here's what it is across the board. And given just this conversation here, I think there's going to probably be an opportunity to say like we need something objective that doesn't. That removes as much as you can the subjectivity on what's effective.
Yeah.
And I think in this particular case, just know a little background on it.
Both.
It's both the labor and management that I've had discussions along with the sponsor, that they work together. I was involved, but they worked together to kind of. To essentially come to a consensus. That's my belief.
I didn't know about.
I didn't know every step, but I knew our steps along the way.
Clearly I need to learn more about the actual existing policy. I'm not educated. I clearly have to learn more about the actual existing policy out there. I'm not. Clearly I'm not as educated on the issue as I wish I were entering this meeting. But as a general principle, I'd like
when one person of two or three
people who turn off defensive because that's created many problems of startup in this country.
Cyrus Humboldt.
I was just going to suggest maybe we should include maybe speak to the sponsor about some sort of reasonableness standard that it can't be unreasonably withheld or that we just had a reasonableness standard, which I think we have, which is all over our law, which would make sense. So you can't have some supervisor who says I don't like butterflies and you have a butterfly on your neck. That's offensive to me. That would be just silly and unreasonable. So maybe we can implement that just to kind of COVID the base a little bit more thoroughly. Just so there's some uniformity to it. But just thought it was a suggestion.
Thank you. Senator Briscoe.
Yeah, I was just hoping for Some clarification. I did have some concerns about this bill too. And when I read it, my interpretation was posted at a. Senator Gallagher, you said about removing some restrictions on showing tattoos and allowing for more people to be hired as police officers with invisible tattoos. And I just did not catch the language around guardrails about what the tattoos could be. And I this did raise flags for me of allowing more people to be hired to police officers with visible tattoos that other people in my community might find offensive. So I just was hoping maybe so I could speak more. Is there a section of the bill that talks about restrictions on what type of tattoos or can be visible or the type of tattoo?
So the original language of the bill did have a list, Senator, about extremist, racist, not using all the. But to address your concern, with the iterations that this, that Senator Hinchey has put forth, it's shifting more toward nothing that could not be covered. So again, prohibiting neck, face, arms, one wing tattoo. And then if there is an issue, it could just be covered. So the shift is from the definition of what the tattoo is more toward what can absolutely not be covered. Like cheeks, forehead, and if it's something that would be visible, could be covered.
Thank you.
Okay.
Senator Martin, so I have another committee
meeting in a second.
So I would offer up maybe a simple suggestion when we speak to the sponsor about just saying that all tattoos
need to be covered while you're working.
Just cover.
We're long sleeve insurance interface. Whether he has.
After doing interface, the bill says you can't do that. Just.
If I may. I mean what this bill does is the way I read it. It requires there to be a specific policy in place. It does not require that we make that policy here in this room. And I think that, as the chair noted, having a specific policy in place allows various parties to review the policy for its appropriateness, for its reasonableness, for its constitutionality. You know, most of the employees that would be affected by this are represented by unions that have, you know, substantial resources. It seems like this from my perspective and this bill did. We passed this bill last year with no majority in the Senate. But I do think this, and I know it's been, it's evolved a little bit since passage. I think it's been met since.
Yes.
So.
But just to say, like, I think that ensuring there's an appropriate policy seems like it balances the right, you know, the interests that we're all talking about here. But I think it's reasonable for us not to set the like, for example, if somebody Has a. You know, the butterfly somebody mentioned on the palm of their hand, should they be prohibited from participating in law enforcement? And I think that probably not a decision.
I hate butterfly.
This is the Galavan rule, with all due respect.
Hold on one second, Senator, Senator Palumbo, very quickly, it's also 11:59. We have another committee waiting for it. So very quickly, real quick, just.
Just presenter Brisport, I just remind you, it said basically, each policy, whereas it will include, but not be limited to permitting a bunch of other tattoos, sleeves, torso, back, prohibiting hand tattoos with the exception of the ring, and prohibiting hand, face and neck. So nothing was. Shall limit the authority of state law enforcement to establishment. Prohibiting any type 2 is not explicitly authorized. So basically, it's just. It's a policy to be pretty broad and pretty general. But I think it's more along the lines of the Permitting act subsection, where I think, as Senator Galvin said, that they were prohibited. Now it's just permitting sleeves, permitting everything. Permitting the ring, but prohibiting the rest and making at least have some backgrounds. So I don't think. I think we might be kind of overthinking this.
I respectfully disagree with both of my colleagues. You know the history. This state has history where we enable policy through legislation and we allow someone to develop a policy and it turns
out to be a disaster.
Time and time again, I've seen that happen. And so what we're saying is let's enable the policy that obviously, when they exist already, I didn't know. But what we're saying is let's give these policies on the guardrails to protect against violations of First Amendment and other acts and to protect against someone's subjectivity. I mean, you know, someone may wear Black Lives Matter tattoo on their wrist here, right? They're going to find that extremist and offensive. I have a problem with that. And therein lies my problem with this bill. And
Senator, thank you to the committee for robust discussion. Is there a motion by Senator Marty? Seconded by Senator Bailey. All those in favor, signify by saying II Any negative or without recommendation for that? Senators Sepulveda and Brisport. Without recommendation. And so concludes today's coach meeting. Thank you very much. Everybody have the week.