De-criminalizes the personal possession of marijuana; relates to certain pleas; specifies requirements with respect to bills affecting the penal law; expands the duties of the division of criminal justice services.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A10175
SPONSOR: Rules (Camara) TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law, in relation to de-cri-
minalizing the personal possession of marihuana; to amend the criminal
procedure law, in relation to certain pleas; to amend the legislative
law, in relation to specifying requirements with respect to bills
affecting the penal law; to amend the executive law, in relation to
expanding the duties of division of criminal justice services; and to
repeal section 221.35 of the penal law relating to criminal sale of
marihuana in the fifth degree
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this bill is to make New York penal law fairer and more
equitable in the administration of marihuana enforcement, and avoid the
disparate racial and ethnic impact seen in current marihuana and other
enforcement.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 states that this act shall be known as the "Fairness and Equi-
ty Act."
Section 2 amends subdivision 6 of section 1.05 of the penal law to state
that that the law should be enforced equally and fairly and not result
in a disparate impact on people because of their race or ethnicity.
Section 3 amends section 221.05 of the penal law to eliminate penalties
escalating to jail time for the violation of "unlawful possession of
marihuana."
Section 4 amends subdivision 2 of section 221.10 of the-penal law so
that the penalty for possession of small amounts of marihuana that is
"burning" or "open to public view" is a violation, not a misdemeanor.
Sections 5 and 6 define criminal sale of less than 25 grams of marihuana
as selling marihuana for consideration.
Section 7 amends subdivision 1 of section 170.56 of the criminal proce-
dure law to allow a court to order an adjournment in contemplation of
dismissal based upon a finding of exceptional circumstances.
Section 8 amends section 210.46 of the criminal procedure law to reflect
the repeal of section 221.35 of the penal law.
Sections 9 and 10 amend section 440.10 of the criminal procedure law to
provide for the vacating of convictions that occurred before the enact-
ment of this bill.
Section 11 amends paragraph k of subdivision 3 of section 160.50 of the
criminal procedure law to eliminate the three-year wait requirement for
the sealing of marihuana-related records.
Section 12 adds a new section 52-a to the legislative law to create
guidelines for the implementation and use of racial and ethnic impact
statements to accompany certain legislation.
Section 13 amends paragraph f of subdivision 4 of section 837 of the
executive law to require that the Division of Criminal Justice Services
conduct research and analysis necessary to complete racial and ethnic
impact statements and present an annual report containing statistics and
other information relevant to such statements.
Section 14 establishes the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
Since 1977, possession of small amounts of marihuana (25 grams or less)
has been "decriminalized" in New York State. It is a violation punisha-
ble by a fine, not a misdemeanor that leads to arrest. In decriminaliz-
ing marijuana, the intent was clear: "The legislature finds that
arrests, criminal prosecutions and criminal penalties are inappropriate
for people who possess small quantities of marihuana for personal use.
Every year, this process needlessly scars thousands of lives and wastes
millions of dollars in law enforcement resources, while detracting from
the prosecution of serious crime." (Chapter 360, Laws of 1977)
But 35 years later, by 2012, more than 44,600 people in New York State
were arrested and charged for a misdemeanor crime for possessing small
amounts of marihuana for personal use, if it was said to be "in public
view" or "burning." Dozens of additional people were charged with crimi-
nal drug sales for the equivalent of sharing a single "joint."
Of the 28,644 people arrested in New York City in 2013 for possessing
small amounts of marihuana, nearly 87 percent were black or Latino,
mostly young men. Of those arrested for sharing, the vast majority were
black or Latino young men between the ages of 16-30. These severe
disparities are alarming and indefensible when considering that data
from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of
the U.S. government consistently shows that young white men are far more
likely to possess and use marihuana than non-whites.
In other words, in New York, possessing small amounts of marihuana is
largely decriminalized for people who are white and vastly more likely
to be criminalized for people who are black or Latino.
The consequences of New York's inequitable decriminalization are severe.
Today, nearly 600,000 New Yorkers are saddled with an arrest record for
possessing small amounts of marihuana, the overwhelming majority of whom
are black or Latino. According to the National Employment Law Project,
these arrest records can follow a person for the rest of one's life and
impact the ability to access banking services, schools, jobs, housing,
certain licensing, and also have immigration consequences. In addition,
according to research by the ACLU and Queens College sociologist Harry
Levine, the costs associated with these arrests total hundreds of
millions of dollars to taxpayers every year.
This bill addresses the disparate racial and ethnic impact that existing
law has had by more fairly decriminalizing possession of small amounts
of marihuana, including sharing a single marihuana cigarette. It also
creates a process for those who have been arrested for possessing or
sharing small amounts of marihuana to have their records stricken or
sealed.
And, the bill creates a process for the legislature to avoid such a
severe inequitable impact in the future through racial and ethnic impact
statements. These statements would provide information to determine if
certain proposed legislation would disproportionately impact racial and
ethnic minorities and if that legislation, when enacted, causes a dispa-
rate impact. Connecticut, Iowa, and Oregon have already implemented
racial and ethnic impact statements, which are most analogous to New
York's "fiscal notes."
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
A5998 , and A6716A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it
shall have become law.
