Decision Maker

New York State Senate


Does New York State Senate have the power to decide or influence something you want to change? Start a petition to this decision maker.Start a petition
Closed
Petitioning New York State Senate

Support the TRUMP Act: No Presidency without Tax Returns

As initially reported in Buzzfeed, Fortune, and the New York Times editorial board, New York State Senator Brad Hoylman (D. 27th District) has introduced a bill that can fix some of the damage done by the 2016 election. This bill deserves and needs popular support. The T.R.U.M.P. (Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public) Act, "would force candidates for president to release five years of tax returns to the New York State board of elections no later than 50 days before the general election, which would in turn redact personal information and make the returns public. Failure to comply with the legislation should it become law would prohibit the state’s electors from voting for that candidate and the candidate’s name would not appear on the New York state ballot."  As Hoylman states, Trump's refusal to disclose his returns have denied voters "an important perspective on the candidate’s potential conflicts of interests as well as their financial well-being and how much he gave to charity.”  With Russian interference in the 2016 election now an established fact, it is essential that Trump's tax returns be released. This bill will be a crucial lever in forcing that release. It could moreover could prove instrumental in restricting the reach of the incoming Trump administration. Since the Republican administration and congress would be unlikely to act on this, this becomes a matter for the states. And thus New York, with its 31 electoral votes, can make a significant national impact with this legislation. Please sign and share. Senator Hoylman is following our petition's progress with interest. Since the bill was first announced there have been similar bills introduced in California, Massachusetts, and Maine. There is a chance to make a real difference here. Your support matters!

Chris Monroe
141,143 supporters
Closed
Petitioning Wells Fargo, Tim Sloan, Carrie. L. Tolstedt, Wells Fargo Board of Directors, Lee Zeldin, Kenneth LaValle, Avid Modjtabai, Franklin Codel, Andrew Cecere, Richard Davis, New York Governor, New York S...

Help save mom's home!

Three generations of our family have lived in our mother’s home. She has been living there for over 50 years and her favorite part is her yard, which she has lovingly tended to ever since we can remember.  Mom is an 85-year-old, a breast cancer survivor, with Alzheimer's Disease. Her home has always been one of the most meaningful parts of her life. It is all about to be taken away. Our mother is one of many Wells Fargo predatory lending victims. Mom was living alone when Wells Fargo approached her and interviewed her for a number of loan applications. Despite being elderly and living on a fixed Social Security income, they gave her two mortgage loans. When she was about to default on one, they issued a third. How could Wells Fargo give her loans that they knew she couldn’t possibly afford? Our mother had no idea she was trapped in a predatory lending scheme, the type that Wells Fargo has been found guilty of doing time and time again. By the time we realized how much trouble mom was in, it was too late to intervene. The statute of limitations for predatory lending had run out and Wells Fargo was on her doorstep coming to collect the house. An attorney for Wells Fargo recently told our family that they, “are not in the business of running a nursing home.”  We have little time to prevent this foreclosure sale from occurring or she will be torn away from her home. This will surely leave her devastated and confused -- a fate she does not deserve. Please sign our petition and tell Wells Fargo to let our mom stay in her beloved home where she belongs.  Thank you!

Save Mom's Home
138,370 supporters
Petitioning Ram Nath Kovind

Make Cantonments A Secured Place For Personnel and Families #CloseAllCantonmentRoads

To The Hon'ble President of India,
 Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces,  Rashtrapati Bhawan
 New Delhi 110004भारत के माननीय राष्ट्रपति, भारतीय सशस्त्र बलों के सर्वोच्च कमांडर, राष्ट्रपति भवन नई दिल्ली 110004 &  To all who want to build a NATION as a NATION ...and NOT DIVIDE IT ... FOR PERSONAL GAINS/और उन सभी को जो राष्ट्र के रूप में राष्ट्र बनाना चाहते हैं ... और इसे वितरित नहीं करें ... व्यक्तिगत लाभ के लिए  Ref: The review of closure of roads undertaken by the MoD on 19 May 2018रेफरी: 1 9 मई 2018 को एमओडी द्वारा किए गए सड़कों को बंद करने की समीक्षा We are the families of armed forces personnel living in various cantonments in India. With regard to the referred matter we would like to put forth the following points हम भारत में विभिन्न कैंटनमेंट्स में रहने वाले सशस्त्र बलों के परिवारों के परिवार हैं। निर्दिष्ट मामले के संबंध में हम निम्नलिखित बिंदुओं को प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं 
 1. The cantonments ( herein after referred to as cantts) are our homes for the duration and time of service of the member of our family serving the country in uniform. We take extreme pride and care in maintaining high standards of living within its premises.1. कैंटनमेंट (यहां कैंट्स के रूप में संदर्भित करने के बाद) हमारे परिवार के सदस्य की वर्दी में देश की सेवा करने की अवधि और समय के लिए हमारे घर हैं। हम अपने परिसर में रहने के उच्च मानकों को बनाए रखने में अत्यधिक गर्व और देखभाल करते हैं। 
2. Our children play in parks fearlessly, study in schools mostly located within the cantt premises and grow up in these cantts learning to be respectful of the environment and abide by the motto that cleanliness is next to godliness.2. हमारे बच्चे निर्विवाद रूप से पार्कों में खेलते हैं, ज्यादातर स्कूलों में अध्ययन करते हैं जो ज्यादातर कैनेट परिसर के भीतर स्थित होते हैं और पर्यावरण के प्रति सम्मान करने के लिए सीखने वाले इन कैंटों में बड़े होते हैं और यह सुनिश्चित करते हैं कि स्वच्छता ईश्वरीयता के बगल में है। 
3. The soldiers who are posted to border areas can do their duties without any worry about their families back home because usually they are safe and secure in the Separate Family Accomodations in cantt areas.3. जिन सैनिकों को सीमावर्ती इलाकों में तैनात किया जाता है, वे अपने परिवारों के घर पर किसी भी चिंता के बिना अपने कर्तव्यों का पालन कर सकते हैं क्योंकि आम तौर पर वे कैंट क्षेत्रों में अलग परिवार के निवास में सुरक्षित और सुरक्षित हैं। 
4. Most family accomodations, parks, shopping complexes, movie theatres and other places where we avail of fauji amenities are not enclosed by boundaries in most cantt areas. Your order regarding the opening of roads will greatly affect the security of these places.4. अधिकांश पारिवारिक आवास, पार्क, शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स, मूवी थिएटर और अन्य जगह जहां हम फाउजी सुविधाओं का लाभ उठाते हैं, अधिकांश कैंट क्षेत्रों में सीमाओं से घिरे नहीं होते हैं। सड़कों के उद्घाटन के संबंध में आपका आदेश इन स्थानों की सुरक्षा को बहुत प्रभावित करेगा।
 5. Each one of us has lived in cantts for several years and has never heard of events such as eve teasing, littering and other petty crimes. Your decision has lead to removal of all barricades and check posts and stoppage of all checking by sentries leaving us seriously vulnerable to such incidents.5. हम में से प्रत्येक ने कई वर्षों तक कैंटों में रहना है और कभी भी चिढ़ाते हुए, कड़वाहट और अन्य छोटे अपराधों जैसी घटनाओं के बारे में कभी नहीं सुना है। आपके फैसले से सभी बाधाओं को हटाने और पदों की जांच और प्रेषणों द्वारा सभी जांचों को रोकने का कारण बन गया है जिससे हमें ऐसी घटनाओं के लिए गंभीर रूप से कमजोर बना दिया गया है। 
6. Till date we could stay safely within the cantts knowing no matter what the dangerous nature of the jobs of our serving family member is, his/her family is secure in a cantt. The sense of safety and security was wiped away in an instant with your order to open cantt roads.6. आज तक हम कैंटों के भीतर सुरक्षित रूप से रह सकते हैं, इससे कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता कि हमारे सेवारत परिवार के सदस्य की नौकरियों की खतरनाक प्रकृति क्या है, उसका परिवार कैनेट में सुरक्षित है। कैंट सड़कों को खोलने के आपके आदेश के साथ तत्काल सुरक्षा और सुरक्षा की भावना दूर हो गई थी। 
7. In today's civilian society even the smallest apartment complex, mall, theatre has security guards put in place by the management. In your eyes we do not deserve even this minimum security that our civilian counterparts enjoy. With your order you have taken away the right of the armed forces personnel to protect his own home.7. आज के नागरिक समाज में भी सबसे छोटे अपार्टमेंट कॉम्प्लेक्स, मॉल, थिएटर में सुरक्षा गार्ड रखे गए हैं। आपकी आंखों में हम इस न्यूनतम सुरक्षा के लायक नहीं हैं जो हमारे नागरिक समकक्षों का आनंद लेते हैं। आपके आदेश के साथ आपने अपने घर की रक्षा के लिए सशस्त्र बलों के कर्मियों का अधिकार हटा लिया है। 
8. It is moot to bring to your notice once again that the attacks by terrorists on army camps have increased in recent times as we, the family members are seen as soft targets. Before your decision is defended on the grounds that cantts in sensitive areas will not be opened for public thoroughfare let us assert strongly that every single cantt is a sensitive area. Nothing stops an anti national element from attacking a unguarded soft target with open access anywhere in the country.8. यह एक बार फिर से नोटिस लाने के लिए प्रेरित है कि हाल के दिनों में सेना शिविरों पर आतंकवादियों द्वारा किए गए हमलों में वृद्धि हुई है, क्योंकि परिवार के सदस्यों को नरम लक्ष्य के रूप में देखा जाता है। इससे पहले कि आपके निर्णय का बचाव उन आधार पर किया जाता है जो संवेदनशील क्षेत्रों में प्रवेश नहीं कर सकते हैं, सार्वजनिक गहनता के लिए खोला नहीं जाएगा, हम दृढ़ता से जोर देते हैं कि प्रत्येक एकल कैंट एक संवेदनशील क्षेत्र है। देश में कहीं भी खुली पहुंच के साथ एक अनियंत्रित नरम लक्ष्य पर हमला करने से एक विरोधी राष्ट्रीय तत्व को रोकता नहीं है।
 9. In the case of occurrence of such an incident as above mentioned PLEASE inform us who in your Government will take responsibility for the same. FURTHER, HOW YOU CAN ASSURE THAT SOLDIERS WILL NOT GO AMOK IF THEIR NEAR AND DEAR ONES ARE HARMED BY ANEs COURTESY SUCH ORDERS.9. उपरोक्त उल्लिखित घटना की घटना के
मामले में कृपया हमें सूचित करें कि आपकी सरकार में कौन जिम्मेदारी लेगा। इसके अलावा, आप कैसे आश्वस्त कर सकते हैं कि सैनिकों को अजीब नहीं लगेगा अगर उनके पास और भय किसी भी तरह के आदेशों से प्रभावित हैं। 
 10. We have been extremely aggrieved by this decision to open all roads and the methodology that is being followed to implement the said order as it puts us in the path of mortal danger and affects our rights enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21. MORE PAINFUL IS THE FACT THAT ALL WAS DONE TO APPEASE THE VOTE BANK SQUATING ON LANDS ABUTTING THESE CANTTS. WE MAY NOT A COLLECTIVE VOTE BANK FOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY BUT FACT REMAINS OUR DEMOCRACY HAS SURVIVED SO LONG DUE TO SACRIFICES MADE BY OUR SOLDIERS AND SUPPORT EXTENDED BY US TO THEM TO CARRY ON ASSIGNED DUTIES.10. हम इस सड़कों और कार्यप्रणाली को खोलने के इस फैसले से बेहद परेशान हुए हैं, जो कि आदेश को लागू करने के लिए किया जा रहा है क्योंकि यह हमें प्राणघातक खतरे के मार्ग में रखता है और अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत संविधान में हमारे अधिकारों को प्रभावित करता है। अधिक दर्दनाक यह तथ्य है कि सभी को इस कंटेंट्स के खिलाफ लैंड्स पर वोट बैंक स्क्वाटिंग की उम्मीद है। हम किसी भी राजनीतिक दल के लिए एक संग्रहित वोट बैंक नहीं कर सकते हैं लेकिन तथ्य यह है कि हमारे लोकतंत्र हमारे सैनिकों द्वारा समर्थित सैकड़ों लोगों के लिए इतने लंबे समय तक बचाया गया है और उन्हें सौंपी गई ड्यूटी पर कैर्री करने के लिए समर्थन दिया गया है। 
 11. Also kindly note that the State has a moral duty to ensure the minimum safety of families of armed forces personnel living within cantts while our men/women in the forces are gone for long hours, months or years protecting our country.11. कृपया ध्यान दें कि राज्य के पास कैंटों के भीतर सशस्त्र बलों के कर्मियों के परिवारों की न्यूनतम सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करने के लिए नैतिक कर्तव्य है, जबकि हमारे पुरुष / महिलाएं लंबे समय तक, हमारे देश की रक्षा करने के महीनों या वर्षों तक चली जाती हैं। 
 12. We proudly state that we are THE STRENGTHS BEHIND THE SOLDIERS the pillars on which our armed forces stand and we shall come forth and fight, adopting all legal recourses available to us, when our security, our safety and OUR WAY OF LIFE is threatened. 12. हम गर्व से कहते हैं कि हम सैनिकों के पीछे ताकत हैं जिन पर हमारी सशस्त्र बलों खड़े हैं और हम बाहर आकर लड़ेंगे, हमारे लिए उपलब्ध सभी कानूनी संसाधनों को अपनाएंगे, जब हमारी सुरक्षा, हमारी सुरक्षा और जीवन के हमारे रास्ते को धमकी दी जाएगी । 
 13. In light of the above mentioned points, please review your order regarding opening of roads in cantts and the methodology being used to enforce the said order and let this reversal be implemented with same electrifying speed as it was done to open it.13. उपरोक्त उल्लिखित बिंदुओं के प्रकाश में, कृपया कैंटों में सड़कों को खोलने और उस आदेश को लागू करने के लिए उपयोग की जाने वाली पद्धति के बारे में अपने आदेश की समीक्षा करें और इसे उलटने के लिए इसे एक ही विद्युतीकरण गति के साथ लागू किया जाए क्योंकि इसे खोलने के लिए किया गया था। 14. One would agree that even commercial places like malls are small offices have checks at their gates ... the list is unending.... so it seems in the order of priority the armed forces of the nation don't stand anywhere...... they should be on the road and live like second class citizens in the same nation where they are not able rather allowed to protect themselves..... it's a black day for you as the supreme commander of armed forces...... who is so disconnected with its own forces. Even Hr managers speak to its employees as a routine.....have you ?14. कोई इस बात से सहमत होगा कि मॉल जैसे वाणिज्यिक स्थान भी छोटे कार्यालयों के पास उनके द्वार पर जांच है ... सूची अनदेखी कर रही है .... इसलिए यह प्राथमिकता के क्रम में लगता है कि देश की सशस्त्र बलों कहीं भी नहीं खड़ी हैं। ..... वे सड़क पर होना चाहिए और उसी देश में दूसरे वर्ग के नागरिकों की तरह रहना चाहिए जहां वे खुद को बचाने की अनुमति नहीं दे रहे हैं ..... यह आपके लिए सशस्त्र बलों के सर्वोच्च कमांडर के रूप में एक काला दिन है। ..... जो अपनी ताकतों से इतनी डिस्कनेक्ट हो गई है। यहां तक कि मानव प्रबंधकों ने अपने कर्मचारियों से नियमित रूप से बात की ..... क्या आप? 15. It's not just about roads ..... it's respect and dignity.... the incidents outside gates really show that your organisation which you head is not respected...... so why don't you remove the army laws too which makes serving soldiers akin to bonded labor. These bonded labor at all levels don't have the right to voice IIRC ....which has given the country a wrong opinion of the armed forces15. यह सिर्फ सड़कों के बारे में नहीं है ..... यह सम्मान और गरिमा है .... द्वार के बाहर की घटनाएं वास्तव में दिखाती हैं कि आपका संगठन जिसका आप सिर करते हैं उसका सम्मान नहीं किया जाता है ...... तो आप सेना को क्यों नहीं हटाते कानून भी जो बंधुआ श्रम के समान सैनिकों की सेवा करता है। इन स्तरों पर इन बंधुआ श्रमिकों को आईआईआरसी आवाज का अधिकार नहीं है .... जिसने देश को सशस्त्र बलों की गलत राय दी हैकॉपी सीओएएस, क्यूएमजी और संबंधित डीजी को अनुमोदित किया जा सकता है ...   Thanking you 

 











 

Preeti Bardia
34,184 supporters
Petitioning Donald Trump, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Department of Veterans Affairs, Alabama State Senate, Alabama State House, Alabama Governor, Florida State Senate, Florida State House, Flo...

Congress: Let all children of U.S. military service members unite with their families!

I’m Jenifer Bass, a U.S. Navy veteran, who served for 10 years, one-third in the Asia-Pacific region. It was due to my travel between ports in countries like Japan and Thailand that I first encountered amerasian children, and descendants, of U.S. service members and civilian contractors previously stationed overseas. Filipino Amerasians are abandoned and neglected biracial children of Filipino mothers and American fathers (mostly members of the US armed forces). In the Philippines alone, more than 52,000-plus children were born and left behind after the U.S. Navy withdrew the last of its military personnel in 1992. Right now, the U.S. government won’t legally recognize them as U.S. citizens, despite having been born to an American parent. The Philippine Embassy won't help them either. As a former US colony between 1898 and 1946, the Philippines was home to millions of US soldiers and their dependents, even after its independence. Until 1992, the country hosted two of the largest US military facilities outside the US – Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base, which played major roles during the Vietnam and first Gulf wars. In 1982 US Public Law 97-359, or the Amerasian Act of 1982, allowed children from Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, or Thailand to move to the US and eventually become American citizens, but those who were from the Philippines were excluded from the law, an exclusion which was upheld by the US Senate on the basis that many Filipino Amerasians were “conceived from illicit affairs and prostitution”, and were born during peacetime. Today, there are estimated to be more than 250,000-plus children. Many amerasians are caught in a no-man’s land of discrimination and poverty -- most left behind by U.S. service members who are unaware that they’ve fathered children overseas. My friend John Haines is one of these sailors. In 2011, John discovered he was the father of a half-Filipino daughter, Jannette. He attempted to unite with her through the American Homecoming Act -- but was frustrated to learn that the Act did not apply to Filipino children of U.S. service members. Today, all John wants is to be united with his daughter and grandchildren. He, like so many other veterans are living with a “hole in their hearts” as they search for ways to unite with their children. There is hope. The Uniting Families Act of 2018, HR 1520, creates a specialized visa allowing military veterans and eligible civilian contractors to sponsor their children and grandchildren for U.S. citizenship. Currently, blood relationship must be proven by DNA test and the total number of visas granted will be capped at 5,000 each year. The issue takes on more urgency as so many of our veterans from our wars in Southeast Asia are getting older and dying each day -- without the chance to connect, or in some cases, reconnect with their own children. John’s daughter Jannette has already undertaken the DNA testing process, conclusively proving her relationship to her American father. All she’s waiting for is the opportunity to permanently unite with her father. There is a PBS documentary, "Left by the Ship" (2010), documenting a day in the life and the personal struggles as a Filipino amerasian on the never ending search for identity and their struggles to connect to their American military families. Please sign this petition to tell Congress that these families cannot wait another day. Pass the Uniting Families Act of 2017, HR 1520, now!

Jenifer Bass
33,376 supporters
Petitioning Pennsylvania State House

Ban Gay Conversion Therapy

Twelve states have moved to ban "ex-gay therapy" for young people -- dangerous "therapy" that tries to change someone's sexual orientation. "Ex-gay therapy" has been linked to suicide, depression, isolation and anxiety, and has been condemned by nearly every medical and psychological body as dangerous, destructive and something no child should be forced to undergo. And yet in 38 states -- including states like New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Ohio -- "ex-gay therapy" remains a practice that's largely legal under the law. But there is national momentum as more and more states move to ban "ex-gay therapy" and protect minors from attempts to "cure" them of their sexual orientation. Hawaii just became the 12th state to ban "ex-gay therapy," and New Hampshire and Delaware are close to following suit. They join states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, New Mexico, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Oregon. That's nearly 25% of the country! But it's not enough. LGBT kids are still facing dangerous "ex-gay therapy" attempts in more than 30 states around the country.  All these states have seen bills introduced to ban "ex-gay therapy". New York -- which touts itself as one of the most LGBT-friendly states in the country -- has seen legislation pass the State Assembly three times; Pennsylvania has had a bill introduced several times; Ohio now has a bill as well that legislators are pushing; and activists in Minnesota have been pushing for a ban on "ex-gay therapy" programs for years. Let's build on this national organizing momentum, and work to get these states added to the list of states stepping up to protect LGBT youth, and banning harmful "ex-gay therapy" that tries to "cure" LGBT people and change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Max Johnson
28,516 supporters
Petitioning Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, New York State House, New York State Senate

Urge New York State DMV to introduce retesting every 2 years once a driver turns 80

Shortly after 10:30am on Monday, June 25th 2018, my wife was walking our 2-year-old son to Willets Point Playground behind P.S. 209 in Whitestone, Queens. She came across the scene of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling south on Utopia Parkway. The young woman was lying unresponsive in the crosswalk and a police officer was attempting to resuscitate her before paramedics had arrived. She did not survive. I later found out that this young woman was a 17-year-old girl named Maddie. Her friends, classmates, and family members created a memorial for her outside of P.S. 209 with candles, flowers, and cards (see photo). 17-year-old Maddie was struck by an 88-year-old driver who drove through a steady red light.  Maddie’s death could have been prevented. Unlike many other states, New York State currently does not have specific provisions for older drivers. A person’s driver’s license only needs to be renewed every 8 years with no retesting for older individuals other than passing a vision exam. Simply passing a vision exam is an extremely low standard for a person to maintain their privilege to drive. A person’s memory (i.e. individuals suffering from dementia) and reaction time must also be assessed during the license renewal process. Individuals over 80 must be able to demonstrate that they can continue to remain safe on the road. As the Baby Boomer generation enters their 70s and 80s, we may see an increase in motor vehicle accidents. Please sign this petition if you support mandatory retesting every two years for all drivers age 80 and over. Let’s keep our communities and roads safe and prevent future tragedies from happening.

Julian Ho
23,843 supporters
Closed
Petitioning U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, New York State House, New York State Senate, New York Governor, Senator Joe Griffo

6 MONTHS IN MENTAL INSTITUTION FOR FATALLY STABBING 6 YR OLD LAUREN SYLVIA BELIUS!!!

SPONSORS MEMO:NEW YORK STATE SENATEINTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORTsubmitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1BILL NUMBER: S5589SPONSOR: GRIFFOTITLE OF BILL:An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to retention ofcustody of persons found not guilty by reason of mental disease ordefectPURPOSE:Directs court to establish a period of commitment for persons found notresponsible by reason of mental disease or defect.SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:Amends Section 330. 20 of the criminal procedure law to add languagethroughout the necessary subdivisions to create a sentence; examinationorder which would require upon entry of a verdict of not responsible byreason of mental disease or defect, or upon the acceptance of a plea ofnot responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, the court mustimpose a period of confinement in the custody of the commissioner whichis equal to the sentence of imprisonment such defendant would havereceived pursuant to article seventy of the penal law, upon convictionof the crime which he or she was charged and issue an examination order.In addition, under subdivision 6, under the issuance of such commitmentorder for the term of period of confinement imposed, pursuant to paragraph(a) of subdivision two of this section, and to such a securefacility as shall be suitable for a mentally ill person or a person witha dangerous mental disorder, as the case may be, based upon the examinationreports.JUSTIFICATION:This bill would amend the procedure following the verdict of Not Guiltyby Reason of Mental Disease or Defect. The bill would impose a period ofconfinement in a mental hygiene facility for the defendant that would beequal to the sentence of imprisonment for which they would have servedin a penal facility had they been found guilty for the crime with whichthey had been charged.The longer confinement would be beneficial for both the defendant andfor the community at large. The defendant would have more time in themental hygiene facility where they are guaranteed treatment for theirdisease as well as having more time to gain skills to help them managetheir disease once released and cope with any guilt associated with thecrime(s) committed when found not guilty by reason of mental disease ordefect.When treatment for mental illness is administered, studies show dramaticdrops in rates of suicide, homelessness, violence and future incarcerationor hospitalization. This bill would also allow peace of mind forthose victims or families of victims knowing that this person will be ina hospital receiving treatment for a significant amount of time and notable to harm them or their family in the near future.High profile cases like those of John Hinckley, Jr. who attempted toassassinate President Ronald Reagan and recently Jared Lee Loughner ofArizona who shot and killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl anda federal judge while wounding 13 others including Congresswoman GabrielleGiffords demonstrate the need to make sure these dangerous individualsare confined whether it be in a penal or mental hygiene facilityfor a determined period of time.Once the individual has been confined for the determined period of timeif they are assessed to be "healthy" by mental health professionals andexperts they would be able to go through the process of being releasedfrom such mental facility. However, should they still be perceived to bea danger to themselves or others even after the period of determinedconfinement is reached the state shall follow necessary procedures tohave such person civilly confined for their safety and that of thecommunity.LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:This is a new bill.FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:To be determined.EFFECTIVE DATE:This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding thedate on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to criminaloffenses committed on or after such date.BILL TEXT:STATE OF NEW YORK________________________________________________________________________55892011-2012 Regular SessionsIN SENATEJune 3, 2011___________Introduced by Sen. GRIFFO -- read twice and ordered printed, and whenprinted to be committed to the Committee on CodesAN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to retention ofcustody of persons found not guilty by reason of mental disease ordefectThe People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly,do enact as follows:1 Section 1. Section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law, as added by2 chapter 548 of the laws of 1980, paragraph (o) of subdivision 1, the3 closing paragraph of subdivision 2 and subdivisions 7-a and 22 as4 amended by chapter 107 of the laws of 2004, subdivisions 2 and 20 as5 amended by chapter 693 of the laws of 1989, subdivisions 5, 8, 9, 10,6 11, 12, 13 and 14 as amended by chapter 789 of the laws of 1985, subdi-7 vision 21 as added by chapter 976 of the laws of 1983, and subparagraph8 (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 21 as amended by chapter 330 of the9 laws of 1993, is amended to read as follows:10 § 330.20 Procedure following verdict or plea of not responsible by11 reason of mental disease or defect.12 1. Definition of terms. As used in this section, the following terms13 shall have the following meanings:14 (a) "Commissioner" means the [state] commissioner of mental health or15 the [state] commissioner of [mental retardation and] developmental16 [disability] disabilities.17 (b) "Secure facility" means a facility within the [state] office of18 mental health or the [state] office [of mental retardation and] for19 people with developmental disabilities which is staffed with personnel20 adequately trained in security methods and is so equipped as to minimize21 the risk or danger of escapes, and which has been so specifically desig-22 nated by the commissioner.23 (c) "Dangerous mental disorder" means: (i) that a defendant currently24 suffers from a "mental illness" as that term is defined in subdivisionEXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets[ ] is old law to be omitted.LBD11734-01-1S. 5589 21 twenty of section 1.03 of the mental hygiene law, and (ii) that because2 of such condition he currently constitutes a physical danger to himself3 or herself or others.4 (d) "Mentally ill" means that a defendant currently suffers from a5 mental illness for which care and treatment as a patient, in the in-pa-6 tient services of a psychiatric center under the jurisdiction of the7 [state] office of mental health, is essential to such defendant's8 welfare and that his or her judgment is so impaired that he or she is9 unable to understand the need for such care and treatment; and, where a10 defendant is mentally retarded, the term "mentally ill" shall also mean,11 for purposes of this section, that the defendant is in need of care and12 treatment as a resident in the in-patient services of a developmental13 center or other residential facility for the mentally retarded and14 developmentally disabled under the jurisdiction of the [state] office15 [of mental retardation and] for people with developmental disabilities.16 (e) "Examination order" means an order directed to the commissioner17 requiring that a defendant submit to a psychiatric examination to deter-18 mine whether the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder, or if he or19 she does not have a dangerous mental disorder, whether he or she is20 mentally ill.21 (f) "Commitment order" [or "recommitment order"] means an order22 committing a defendant to the custody of the commissioner for confine-23 ment in a secure facility for care and treatment [for six months from24 the date of the order].25 (g) "First retention order" means an order which is effective at the26 expiration of the period prescribed in a commitment order [for] or a27 recommitment order, authorizing continued custody of a defendant by the28 commissioner for a period not to exceed one year.29 (h) "Second retention order" means an order which is effective at the30 expiration of the period prescribed in a first retention order, author-31 izing continued custody of a defendant by the commissioner for a period32 not to exceed two years.33 (i) "Subsequent retention order" means an order which is effective at34 the expiration of the period prescribed in a second retention order or a35 prior subsequent retention order authorizing continued custody of a36 defendant by the commissioner for a period not to exceed two years.37 (j) "Retention order" means a first retention order, a second38 retention order or a subsequent retention order.39 (k) "Furlough order" means an order directing the commissioner to40 allow a defendant in confinement pursuant to a commitment order, recom-41 mitment order or retention order to temporarily leave the facility for a42 period not exceeding fourteen days, [either] with [or without] the43 constant supervision of one or more employees of the facility.44 (l) "Transfer order" means an order directing the commissioner to45 transfer a defendant from a secure facility to a non-secure facility46 under the jurisdiction of the commissioner or to any non-secure facility47 designated by the commissioner.48 (m) "Release order" means an order directing the commissioner to49 terminate a defendant's in-patient status without terminating the50 commissioner's responsibility for the defendant.51 (n) "Discharge order" means an order terminating an order of condi-52 tions or unconditionally discharging a defendant from supervision under53 the provisions of this section.54 (o) "Order of conditions" means an order directing a defendant to55 comply with this prescribed treatment plan, or any other condition which56 the court determines to be reasonably necessary or appropriate, and, inS. 5589 31 addition, where a defendant is in custody of the commissioner, not to2 leave the facility without authorization. In addition to such condi-3 tions, when determined to be reasonably necessary or appropriate, an4 order of conditions may be accompanied by a special order of conditions5 set forth in a separate document requiring that the defendant: (i) stay6 away from the home, school, business or place of employment of the7 victim or victims, or of any witness designated by the court, of such8 offense; or (ii) refrain from harassing, intimidating, threatening or9 otherwise interfering with the victim or victims of the offense and such10 members of the family or household of such victim or victims as shall be11 specifically named by the court in such special order. An order of12 conditions or special order of conditions shall be valid for five years13 from the date of its issuance, except that, for good cause shown, the14 court may extend the period for an additional five years.15 (p) "District attorney" means the office which prosecuted the criminal16 action resulting in the verdict or plea of not responsible by reason of17 mental disease or defect.18 (q) "Qualified psychiatrist" means a physician who (i) is a diplomate19 of the American board of psychiatry and neurology or is eligible to be20 certified by that board; or (ii) is certified by the American osteopath-21 ic board of neurology and psychiatry or is eligible to be certified by22 that board.23 (r) "Licensed psychologist" means a person who is registered as a24 psychologist under article one hundred fifty-three of the education law.25 (s) "Psychiatric examiner" means a qualified psychiatrist or a26 licensed psychologist who has been designated by the commissioner to27 examine a defendant pursuant to this section, and such designee need not28 be an employee of the department of mental hygiene.29 2. [Examination] Sentence; examination order; psychiatric examiners.30 Upon entry of a verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease31 or defect, or upon the acceptance of a plea of not responsible by reason32 of mental disease or defect, the court must immediately (a) impose a33 period of confinement in the custody of the commissioner which is equal34 to the sentence of imprisonment such defendant would have received35 pursuant to article seventy of the penal law, upon conviction of the36 crime with which he or she was charged; and (b) issue an examination37 order. Upon receipt of such order, the commissioner must designate two38 qualified psychiatric examiners to conduct the examination to examine39 the defendant. In conducting their examination, the psychiatric examin-40 ers may employ any method which is accepted by the medical profession41 for the examination of persons alleged to be suffering from a dangerous42 mental disorder or to be mentally ill or retarded. The court may author-43 ize a psychiatrist or psychologist retained by a defendant to be present44 at such examination. The clerk of the court must promptly forward a copy45 of the examination order to the mental hygiene legal service and such46 service may thereafter participate in all subsequent proceedings under47 this section.48 In all subsequent proceedings under this section, [prior to the issu-49 ance of a special order of conditions,] the court shall consider whether50 any order of protection had been issued prior to a verdict of not51 responsible by reason of mental disease or defect in the case, or prior52 to the acceptance of a plea of not responsible by reason of mental53 disease or defect in the case.54 3. Examination order; place of examination. Upon issuing an examina-55 tion order, the court must, except as otherwise provided in this subdi-56 vision, direct that the defendant be committed to a secure facilityS. 5589 41 designated by the commissioner as the place for such psychiatric exam-2 ination. The sheriff must hold the defendant in custody pending such3 designation by the commissioner, and when notified of the designation,4 the sheriff must promptly deliver the defendant to such secure facility.5 [When the defendant is not in custody at the time of such verdict or6 plea, because he was previously released on bail or on his own recogni-7 zance, the court, in its discretion, may direct that such examination be8 conducted on an out-patient basis, and at such time and place as the9 commissioner shall designate. If, however, the commissioner informs the10 court that confinement of the defendant is necessary for an effective11 examination, the court must direct that the defendant be confined in a12 facility designated by the commissioner until the examination is13 completed.]14 4. Examination order, duration. Confinement in a secure facility15 pursuant to an examination order shall be for a period not exceeding16 thirty days, except that, upon application of the commissioner, the17 court may authorize confinement for an additional period not exceeding18 thirty days when a longer period is necessary to complete the examina-19 tion. [If the initial hearing required by subdivision six of this20 section has not commenced prior to the termination of such examination21 period, the commissioner shall retain custody of the defendant in such22 secure facility until custody is transferred to the sheriff in the23 manner prescribed in subdivision six of this section.] During the period24 of such confinement, the physician in charge of the facility may admin-25 ister or cause to be administered to the defendant such emergency26 psychiatric, medical or other therapeutic treatment as in his or her27 judgment should be administered. [If the court has directed that the28 examination be conducted on an out-patient basis, the examination shall29 be completed within thirty days after the defendant has first reported30 to the place designated by the commissioner, except that, upon applica-31 tion of the commissioner, the court may extend such period for a reason-32 able time if a longer period is necessary to complete the examination.]33 5. Examination order; reports. After he or she has completed his or34 her examination of the defendant, each psychiatric examiner must prompt-35 ly prepare a report of his or her findings and evaluation concerning the36 defendant's mental condition, and submit such report to the commission-37 er. If the psychiatric examiners differ in their opinion as to whether38 the defendant is mentally ill or is suffering from a dangerous mental39 disorder, the commissioner must designate another psychiatric examiner40 to examine the defendant. Upon receipt of the examination reports, the41 commissioner must submit them to the court that issued the examination42 order. If the court is not satisfied with the findings of these psychi-43 atric examiners, the court may designate one or more additional psychi-44 atric examiners pursuant to subdivision fifteen of this section. [The45 court must furnish a copy of the reports to the district attorney, coun-46 sel for the defendant and the mental hygiene legal service.]47 6. [Initial hearing; commitment] Commitment order. After the examina-48 tion reports are submitted, the court must[, within ten days of the49 receipt of such reports, conduct an initial hearing to determine the50 defendant's present mental condition. If the defendant is in the custody51 of the commissioner pursuant to an examination order, the court must52 direct the sheriff to obtain custody of the defendant from the commis-53 sioner and to confine the defendant pending further order of the court,54 except that the court may direct the sheriff to confine the defendant in55 an institution located near the place where the court sits if that56 institution has been designated by the commissioner as suitable for theS. 5589 51 temporary and secure detention of mentally disabled persons. At such2 initial hearing, the district attorney must establish to the satisfac-3 tion of the court that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or4 is mentally ill. If the court finds that the defendant has a dangerous5 mental disorder, it must] issue a commitment order for the term of the6 period of confinement imposed, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision7 two of this section, and to such a secure facility as shall be suitable8 for a mentally ill person or a person with a dangerous mental disorder,9 as the case may be, based upon the examination reports. [If the court10 finds that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder but11 is mentally ill, the provisions of subdivision seven of this section12 shall apply.]13 7. [Initial hearing civil commitment and order of conditions. If, at14 the conclusion of the initial hearing conducted pursuant to subdivision15 six of this section, the court finds that the defendant is mentally ill16 but does not have a dangerous mental disorder, the provisions of arti-17 cles nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law shall apply at that stage18 of the proceedings and at all subsequent proceedings. Having found that19 the defendant is mentally ill, the court must issue an order of condi-20 tions and an order committing the defendant to the custody of the21 commissioner. The latter order shall be deemed an order made pursuant to22 the mental hygiene law and not pursuant to this section, and further23 retention, conditional release or discharge of such defendant shall be24 in accordance with the provisions of the mental hygiene law. If, at the25 conclusion of the initial hearing, the court finds that the defendant26 does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill, the27 court must discharge the defendant either unconditionally or subject to28 an order of conditions.29 7-a. Whenever the court issues a special order of conditions pursuant30 to this section, the commissioner shall make reasonable efforts to noti-31 fy the victim or victims or the designated witness or witnesses that a32 special order of conditions containing such provisions has been issued,33 unless such victim or witness has requested that such notice should not34 be provided.35 8.] First retention order. When a defendant is in the custody of the36 commissioner pursuant to a commitment order, the commissioner must, at37 least thirty days prior to the expiration of the period prescribed in38 the order, apply to the court that issued the order, or to a superior39 court in the county where the secure facility is located, for a first40 retention order or a release order. The commissioner must give written41 notice of the application to the district attorney, the defendant, coun-42 sel for the defendant, and the mental hygiene legal service. Upon43 receipt of such application, the court may, on its own motion, conduct a44 hearing to determine whether the defendant has a dangerous mental disor-45 der, and it must conduct such hearing if a demand therefor is made by46 the district attorney, the defendant, counsel for the defendant, or the47 mental hygiene legal service within ten days from the date that notice48 of the application was given to them. If such a hearing is held on an49 application for retention, the commissioner must establish to the satis-50 faction of the court that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder51 or is mentally ill. The district attorney shall be entitled to appear52 and present evidence at such hearing. If such a hearing is held on an53 application for release, the district attorney must establish to the54 satisfaction of the court that the defendant has a dangerous mental55 disorder or is mentally ill. If the court finds that the defendant has a56 dangerous mental disorder it must issue a first retention order. If theS. 5589 61 court finds that the defendant is mentally ill but does not have a2 dangerous mental disorder, it must issue a first retention order and,3 pursuant to subdivision [eleven] ten of this section, a transfer order4 and an order of conditions. If the court finds that the defendant does5 not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill, it must6 issue a release order and an order of conditions pursuant to subdivision7 [twelve] eleven of this section.8 [9.] 8. Second and subsequent retention orders. When a defendant is in9 the custody of the commissioner pursuant to a first retention order, the10 commissioner must, at least thirty days prior to the expiration of the11 period prescribed in the order, apply to the court that issued the12 order, or to a superior court in the county where the facility is13 located, for a second retention order or a release order. The commis-14 sioner must give written notice of the application to the district15 attorney, the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the mental16 hygiene legal service. Upon receipt of such application, the court may,17 on its own motion, conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant18 has a dangerous mental disorder, and it must conduct such hearing if a19 demand therefor is made by the district attorney, the defendant, counsel20 for the defendant, or the mental hygiene legal service within ten days21 from the date that notice of the application was given to them. If such22 a hearing is held on an application for retention, the commissioner must23 establish to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant has a24 dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill. The district attorney25 shall be entitled to appear and present evidence at such hearing. If26 such a hearing is held on an application for release, the district27 attorney must establish to the satisfaction of the court that the28 defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill. If the29 court finds that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder it must30 issue a second retention order. If the court finds that the defendant is31 mentally ill but does not have a dangerous mental disorder, it must32 issue a second retention order and, pursuant to subdivision [eleven] ten33 of this section, a transfer order and an order of conditions. If the34 court finds that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder35 and is not mentally ill, it must issue a release order and an order of36 conditions pursuant to subdivision [twelve] eleven of this section. When37 a defendant is in the custody of the commissioner prior to the expira-38 tion of the period prescribed in a second retention order, the proce-39 dures set forth in this subdivision for the issuance of a second40 retention order shall govern the application for and the issuance of any41 subsequent retention order.42 [10.] 9. Furlough order. The commissioner may apply for a furlough43 order, pursuant to this subdivision, when a defendant is in his or her44 custody pursuant to a [commitment order,] recommitment order[,] or45 retention order and the commissioner is of the view that, consistent46 with the public safety and welfare of the community and the defendant,47 the clinical condition of the defendant warrants a granting of the priv-48 ileges authorized by a furlough order. The application for a furlough49 order may be made to the court that issued the commitment order, or to a50 superior court in the county where the secure facility is located. The51 commissioner must give ten days written notice to the district attorney,52 the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the mental hygiene legal53 service. Upon receipt of such application, the court may, on its own54 motion, conduct a hearing to determine whether the application should be55 granted, and must conduct such hearing if a demand therefor is made by56 the district attorney. If the court finds that the issuance of aS. 5589 71 furlough order is consistent with the public safety and welfare of the2 community and the defendant, and that the clinical condition of the3 defendant warrants a granting of the privileges authorized by a furlough4 order, the court must grant the application and issue a furlough order5 containing any terms and conditions that the court deems necessary or6 appropriate. If the defendant fails to return to the secure facility at7 the time specified in the furlough order, then, for purposes of subdivi-8 sion [nineteen] eighteen of this section, he or she shall be deemed to9 have escaped.10 [11.] 10. Transfer order and order of conditions. The commissioner may11 apply for a transfer order, pursuant to this subdivision, when a defend-12 ant is in his or her custody pursuant to a retention order or a recom-13 mitment order, and the commissioner is of the view that the defendant14 does not have a dangerous mental disorder or that, consistent with the15 public safety and welfare of the community and the defendant, the clin-16 ical condition of the defendant warrants his or her transfer from a17 secure facility to a non-secure facility under the jurisdiction of the18 commissioner or to any non-secure facility designated by the commission-19 er. The application for a transfer order may be made to the court that20 issued the order under which the defendant is then in custody, or to a21 superior court in the county where the secure facility is located. The22 commissioner must give ten days written notice to the district attorney,23 the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the mental hygiene legal24 service. Upon receipt of such application, the court may, on its own25 motion, conduct a hearing to determine whether the application should be26 granted, and must conduct such hearing if the demand therefor is made by27 the district attorney. At such hearing, the district attorney must28 establish to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant has a29 dangerous mental disorder or that the issuance of a transfer order is30 inconsistent with the public safety and welfare of the community. The31 court must grant the application and issue a transfer order if the court32 finds that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder, or33 if the court finds that the issuance of a transfer order is consistent34 with the public safety and welfare of the community and the defendant35 and that the clinical condition of the defendant, warrants his or her36 transfer from a secure facility to a non-secure facility. A court must37 also issue a transfer order when, in connection with an application for38 a first retention order pursuant to subdivision [eight] seven of this39 section or a second or subsequent retention order pursuant to subdivi-40 sion [nine] eight of this section, it finds that a defendant is mentally41 ill but does not have a dangerous mental disorder. Whenever a court42 issues a transfer order it must also issue an order of conditions.43 [12.] 11. Release order and order of conditions. The commissioner may44 apply for a release order, pursuant to this subdivision, when a defend-45 ant is in his or her custody pursuant to a retention order or recommit-46 ment order, and the commissioner is of the view that the defendant no47 longer has a dangerous mental disorder and is no longer mentally ill.48 The application for a release order may be made to the court that issued49 the order under which the defendant is then in custody, or to a superior50 court in the county where the facility is located. The application must51 contain a description of the defendant's current mental condition, the52 past course of treatment, a history of the defendant's conduct subse-53 quent to his or her commitment, a written service plan for continued54 treatment which shall include the information specified in subdivision55 (g) of section 29.15 of the mental hygiene law, and a detailed statement56 of the extent to which supervision of the defendant after release isS. 5589 81 proposed. The commissioner must give ten days written notice to the2 district attorney, the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the3 mental hygiene legal service. Upon receipt of such application, the4 court must promptly conduct a hearing to determine the defendant's pres-5 ent mental condition. At such hearing, the district attorney must6 establish to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant has a7 dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill. If the court finds that8 the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder, it must deny the applica-9 tion for a release order. If the court finds that the defendant does not10 have a dangerous mental disorder but is mentally ill, it must issue a11 transfer order pursuant to subdivision [eleven] ten of this section if12 the defendant is then confined in a secure facility. If the court finds13 that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not14 mentally ill, it must grant the application and issue a release order. A15 court must also issue a release order when, in connection with an appli-16 cation for a first retention order pursuant to subdivision [eight] seven17 of this section or a second or subsequent retention order pursuant to18 subdivision [nine] eight of this section, it finds that the defendant19 does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill. When-20 ever a court issues a release order it must also issue an order of21 conditions. If the court has previously issued a transfer order and an22 order of conditions, it must issue a new order of conditions upon issu-23 ing a release order. The order of conditions issued in conjunction with24 a release order shall incorporate a written service plan prepared by a25 psychiatrist familiar with the defendant's case history and approved by26 the court, and shall contain any conditions that the court determines to27 be reasonably necessary or appropriate. It shall be the responsibility28 of the commissioner to determine that such defendant is receiving the29 services specified in the written service plan and is complying with any30 conditions specified in such plan and the order of conditions.31 [13.] 12. Discharge order. The commissioner may apply for a discharge32 order, pursuant to this subdivision, when a defendant has been contin-33 uously on an out-patient status for three years or more pursuant to a34 release order, and the commissioner is of the view that the defendant no35 longer has a dangerous mental disorder and is no longer mentally ill and36 that the issuance of a discharge order is consistent with the public37 safety and welfare of the community and the defendant. The application38 for a discharge order may be made to the court that issued the release39 order, or to a superior court in the county where the defendant is then40 residing. The commissioner must give ten days written notice to the41 district attorney, the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the42 mental hygiene legal service. Upon receipt of such application, the43 court may, on its own motion, conduct a hearing to determine whether the44 application should be granted, and must conduct such hearing if a demand45 therefor is made by the district attorney. The court must grant the46 application and issue a discharge order if the court finds that the47 defendant has been continuously on an out-patient status for three years48 or more, that he or she does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is49 not mentally ill, and that the issuance of the discharge order is50 consistent with the public safety and welfare of the community and the51 defendant.52 [14] 13. Recommitment order. At any time during the period covered by53 an order of conditions an application may be made by the commissioner or54 the district attorney to the court that issued such order, or to a supe-55 rior court in the county where the defendant is then residing, for a56 recommitment order when the applicant is of the view that the defendantS. 5589 91 has a dangerous mental disorder. The applicant must give written notice2 of the application to the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the3 mental hygiene legal service, and if the applicant is the commissioner4 he or she must give such notice to the district attorney or if the5 applicant is the district attorney he or she must give such notice to6 the commissioner. Upon receipt of such application the court must order7 the defendant to appear before it for a hearing to determine if the8 defendant has a dangerous mental disorder. Such order may be in the form9 of a written notice, specifying the time and place of appearance, served10 personally upon the defendant, or mailed to his or her last known11 address, as the court may direct. If the defendant fails to appear in12 court as directed, the court [may] shall issue a warrant to an appropri-13 ate peace officer directing him or her to take the defendant into custo-14 dy and bring him or her before the court. In such circumstance, the15 court [may] shall direct that the defendant be confined in an appropri-16 ate institution located near the place where the court sits. The court17 must conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant has a danger-18 ous mental disorder. At such hearing, the applicant, whether he or she19 be the commissioner or the district attorney must establish to the20 satisfaction of the court that the defendant has a dangerous mental21 disorder. If the applicant is the commissioner, the district attorney22 shall be entitled to appear and present evidence at such hearing; if the23 applicant is the district attorney, the commissioner shall be entitled24 to appear and present evidence at such hearing. If the court finds that25 the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder, it must issue a recommit-26 ment order. When a defendant is in the custody of the commissioner27 pursuant to a recommitment order, the procedures set forth in subdivi-28 sions seven and eight [and nine] of this section for the issuance of29 retention orders shall govern the application for and the issuance of a30 first retention order, a second retention order, and subsequent31 retention orders.32 [15] 14. Designation of psychiatric examiners. If, at any hearing33 conducted under this section to determine the defendant's present mental34 condition, the court is not satisfied with the findings of the psychiat-35 ric examiners, the court may direct the commissioner to designate one or36 more additional psychiatric examiners to conduct an examination of the37 defendant and submit a report of their findings. In addition, the court38 may on its own motion, or upon request of a party, may designate one or39 more psychiatric examiners to examine the defendant and submit a report40 of their findings. The district attorney may apply to the court for an41 order directing that the defendant submit to an examination by a psychi-42 atric examiner designated by the district attorney, and such psychiatric43 examiner may testify at the hearing.44 [16] 15. Rehearing and review. Any defendant who is in the custody of45 the commissioner pursuant to a [commitment order,] a retention order, or46 a recommitment order, if dissatisfied with such order, may, within thir-47 ty days after the making of such order, obtain a rehearing and review of48 the proceedings and of such order in accordance with the provisions of49 section 9.35 or 15.35 of the mental hygiene law.50 [17] 16. Rights of defendants. Subject to the limitations and51 provisions of this section, a defendant committed to the custody of the52 commissioner pursuant to this section shall have the rights granted to53 patients under the mental hygiene law.54 [18] 17. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person55 confined by reason of a [commitment order,] recommitment order or56 retention order to a secure facility may be discharged or releasedS. 5589 101 unless the commissioner shall deliver written notice, at least four days2 excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, in advance of such discharge3 or release to all of the following:4 (a) the district attorney.5 (b) the police department having jurisdiction of the area to which the6 defendant is to be discharged or released.7 (c) any other person the court may designate.8 The notices required by this subdivision shall be given by the facili-9 ty staff physician who was treating the defendant or, if unavailable, by10 the defendant's treatment team leader, but if neither is immediately11 available, notice must be given by some other member of the clinical12 staff of the facility. Such notice must be given by any means reasonably13 calculated to give prompt actual notice.14 [19] 18. Escape from custody; notice requirements. If a defendant is15 in the custody of the commissioner pursuant to an order issued under16 this section, and such defendant escapes from custody, immediate notice17 of such escape shall be given by the department facility staff to: (a)18 the district attorney, (b) the superintendent of state police, (c) the19 sheriff of the county where the escape occurred, (d) the police depart-20 ment having jurisdiction of the area where the escape occurred, (e) any21 person the facility staff believes to be in danger, and (f) any law22 enforcement agency and any person the facility staff believes would be23 able to apprise such endangered person that the defendant has escaped24 from the facility. Such notice shall be given as soon as the facility25 staff know that the defendant has escaped from the facility and shall26 include such information as will adequately identify the defendant and27 the person or persons believed to be in danger and the nature of the28 danger. The notices required by this subdivision shall be given by the29 facility staff physician who was treating the defendant or, if unavail-30 able, by the defendant's treatment team leader, but if neither is imme-31 diately available, notice must be given by some other member of the32 clinical staff of the facility. Such notice must be given by any means33 reasonably calculated to give prompt actual notice. The defendant may be34 apprehended, restrained, transported to, and returned to the facility35 from which he escaped by any peace officer, and it shall be the duty of36 the officer to assist any representative of the commissioner to take the37 defendant into custody upon the request of such representative.38 [20] 19. Required affidavit. No application may be made by the39 commissioner under this section without an accompanying affidavit from40 at least one psychiatric examiner supportive of relief requested in the41 application, which affidavit shall be served on all parties entitled to42 receive the notice of application. Such affidavit shall set forth the43 defendant's clinical diagnosis, a detailed analysis of his or her mental44 condition which caused the psychiatric examiner to formulate an opinion,45 and the opinion of the psychiatric examiner with respect to the defend-46 ant. Any application submitted without the required affidavit shall be47 dismissed by the court.48 [21] 20. Appeals. (a) A party to proceedings conducted in accordance49 with the provisions of this section may take an appeal to an intermedi-50 ate appellate court by permission of the intermediate appellate court as51 follows:52 (i) the commissioner may appeal from any release order, retention53 order, transfer order, discharge order, order of conditions, or recom-54 mitment order, for which he or she has not applied;55 (ii) a defendant, or the mental hygiene legal service on his or her56 behalf, may appeal from any [commitment order,] retention order, recom-S. 5589 111 mitment order, or, if the defendant has obtained a rehearing and review2 of any such order pursuant to subdivision [sixteen] fifteen of this3 section, from an order, not otherwise appealable as of right, issued in4 accordance with the provisions of section 9.35 or 15.35 of the mental5 hygiene law authorizing continued retention under the original order,6 provided, however, that a defendant who takes an appeal from a [commit-7 ment order,] retention order, or recommitment order may not subsequently8 obtain a rehearing and review of such order pursuant to subdivision9 [sixteen] fifteen of this section;10 (iii) the district attorney may appeal from any release order, trans-11 fer order, discharge order, order of conditions, furlough order, or12 order denying an application for a recommitment order which he or she13 opposed.14 (b) An aggrieved party may appeal from a final order of the intermedi-15 ate appellate court to the court of appeals by permission of the inter-16 mediate appellate court granted before application to the court of17 appeals, or by permission of the court of appeals upon refusal by the18 intermediate appellate court or upon direct application.19 (c) An appeal taken under this subdivision shall be deemed civil in20 nature, and shall be governed by the laws and rules applicable to civil21 appeals; provided, however, that a stay of the order appealed from must22 be obtained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) [hereof]23 of this subdivision.24 (d) The court from or to which an appeal is taken may stay all25 proceedings to enforce the order appealed from pending an appeal or26 determination on a motion for permission to appeal, or may grant a27 limited stay, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may28 vacate, limit, or modify a stay previously granted. If the order29 appealed from is affirmed or modified, the stay shall continue for five30 days after service upon the appellant of the order of affirmance or31 modification with notice of its entry in the court to which the appeal32 was taken. If a motion is made for permission to appeal from such an33 order, before the expiration of the five days, the stay, or any other34 stay granted pending determination of the motion for permission to35 appeal, shall:36 (i) if the motion is granted, continue until five days after the37 appeal is determined; or38 (ii) if the motion is denied, continue until five days after the39 movant is served with the order of denial with notice of its entry.40 [22] 21. Any special order of conditions issued pursuant to subpara-41 graph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (o) of subdivision one of this section42 shall bear in a conspicuous manner the term "special order of condi-43 tions" and a copy shall be filed by the clerk of the court with the44 sheriff's office in the county in which anyone intended to be protected45 by such special order resides, or, if anyone intended to be protected by46 such special order resides within a city, with the police department of47 such city. The absence of language specifying that the order is a48 "special order of conditions" shall not affect the validity of such49 order. A copy of such special order of conditions may from time to time50 be filed by the clerk of the court with any other police department or51 sheriff's office having jurisdiction of the residence, work place, or52 school of anyone intended to be protected by such special order. A copy53 of such special order may also be filed by anyone intended to be54 protected by such provisions at the appropriate police department or55 sheriff's office having jurisdiction. Any subsequent amendment or revo-56 cation of such special order may be filed in the same manner as providedS. 5589 121 in this subdivision. Such special order of conditions shall plainly2 state the date that the order expires.3 § 2. This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeed-4 ing the date on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to5 criminal offenses committed on or after such date.

Kelli Swancott
21,503 supporters
Closed
Petitioning Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate, Delaware State House, Delaware State Senate, John Carney, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Massachusetts State House, Michael Capuano, Jim McGovern, Niki Tsongas...

Adverse effect of GOP tax bill on Graduate students in the US

Graduate students in the US are already living at the survival line. They are working hard to push forward the frontiers of science in all directions and trying to make a better tomorrow than today. Their disposable income is barely reaches 20k per year ( stipend for being TA or RA) and this money goes all to their consumption needs with almost nothing left to save. The new GOP tax bill is going to make the tuition waiver taxable which is estimated to cost each graduate student about $2000 a year and this will push most of the graduate students even lower the survival level. As a result, they should cut down their daily expenses to get along with the new budget and this means they will buy and consume less necessary stuff. On the other side, local businesses will suffer as well because students will spend less money in local restaurants, bars, games and etc. In all, this bill is going to put more financial pressure on graduate students and also hurt local businesses across the US. Please sign and share this petition to support all graduate students in the US and also opposing this unfair tax bill.

Kaveh Dlv
18,045 supporters
Petitioning Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State House, New York State Senate, Sue Serino, Didi Barrett, Carl Heastie, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Aileen Gunther, Angelo Santabarbara, Latoya Joyner, James Skoufis, Charles E....

Bailey’s Law now! Hold criminals accountable for victimizing the developmentally disabled!

 Please Support the Passage of #BaileysLaw We cannot allow criminals to get away with the death of their victims, especially our disabled loved ones. 12-5-18 Update: The court is moving forward with the golden plea deal for Teator- reduced charges, 3 years probation, and the gift of wiping out her completely unrelated charges in a totally separate court. The Thompson case has not started yet... I’m outraged. This is NOT JUSTICE or a deterrent for INTENTIONALLY victimizing an autistic 19 year old whereby the crime directly led to his death. Please, please, help me fix this so our story doesn’t become someone else’s.  What you can do to help:1. SHARE the petition and Bailey’s story, in person and online2. Go to our website and print free flyers for local venues and local bulletin boards in your town, and deliver them to all the neighbors on your street 3. Call agencies that support the disabled and/or elderly and ask them to join our coalition of support. You can give them the website address as a contact.                    4. Call your representatives, wherever you live, and tell them we need #BaileysLaw.5. Stay informed. The blood and guts of this journey is on our Facebook page Dear Bailey. OUR STORY My 19 year old autistic son, Bailey, committed suicide on 7-31-17, my birthday of all days. After nearly 20 years of complete family devotion and cultivating our lives in support, contemplation and preparation of his each new life phase, new stage, new challenge, and new triumph our lives were completely and irrevocably upended in the span of 8 minutes. Bailey had many friends. He was kind, funny, caring, generous, gentle, down to earth, and creative. He was an artist, a lover of history, and had compassion for all living things. He was a teacher his whole life as much as he was a student of it. Bailey made me stronger, made me determined, made me timely, made me adjustable, made me more understanding...and it was Bailey that made me an advocate for kids with special needs for all these years. Of course, his 3 siblings also helped make me, and him, over the years...we all made each other. Our family has always been very tight. Being a single mom the last 16 years enabled me to make my children my world, and show them we are a team. I’ve tried to give them everything I am and everything I have within me, with intention. But despite everything I’d, we’d, put in over the years my son, their brother, is gone...less then 8 minutes after leaving my side. Bailey resorted to suicide 7 days after being a victim of a financial crime, 4 days after I realized he was victimized, and less than 5 hours of being asked to ID one of the perpetrators. He was preyed upon, betrayed, and taken advantage of by a girl he knew for years and had recently befriended him. This girl connected her male friend to my son under the guise of helping them cash a check. From what I’ve been told by State Police, Bailey was hesitant to help them, unsure of whether or not the request was legitimate, and she assured my son that the request was fine and then promised him, I believe, $200 from the proceeds for his assistance. I suspect Bailey provided them with his bank card and his PIN number. On 7-24-17 the male deposited a $1675.00 fraudulent check at an atm in Highland, NY and then immediately withdrew $200 (the amount fronted with a check hold); this was caught on atm bank video. I realized there was a problem on Thursday the 27th when I noted on our joint account both the deposit and withdrawal as well as the $200 withdrawal ultimately being pulled from my separate account. Bailey was learning banking and I would transfer his disability money to the joint account so he would learn about money management, budgeting, grocery shopping, etc. Bailey was devastated over the loss. We connected with local police on the 27th, who then directed us to the nearest state troopers on the 28th, who in turn directed us to State Troopers in Highland on 7-29-17 where we filed a complaint. Later on that Saturday, my youngest son told me he overheard his brother Bailey on the phone after hearing of the banking problem on Thursday, extremely upset over the financial loss and insisting on the return of funds. On Monday, 7-31-17 the investigator came to our house at 12:30 to see if Bailey could ID the male in the bank video. Bailey claimed he did not know the person and by his reaction I believe he didn’t. At 5:16pm he left our home stating he was going for a walk to draw; this was not unlike him as his executive processing speed is slower than many and he’d use walks or drawing to manage stresses. By 5:30 I heard the emergency response sirens and ran down our street, because I never wanted my kids around the chaos when EMS was in the area, and of course I wanted to count the safety of my chicks. The area they were responding to is a nuisance area that has had more than it’s fair share of fires....but there was no fire truck, only medical response. My son had hung himself in the woods less than a block from our home. The next day I was presented with a note he’d written; he clearly believed he’d done something very wrong in trusting the wrong person. No law enforcement involved in this case believes that Bailey had the faculty to understand what was happening, or the complexities that he was a victim, and neither does any of his family nor his longstanding therapist. There is no doubt in my mind that he merely thought he was helping someone. Both accused, at this point, will only be charged minimally; one with grand larceny 4th and the other with Endangering a disabled person 1st, both class E non violent felonies. Theoretically they could each get probation. They have each since been arrested for other crimes; her on drug charges in October 2017 and him for killing a 16 year old with his car after an argument in Yonkers in December 2017. The male is being held without bail in Westchester and has yet to be charged for our case. The female was arrested and arraigned for this case but was granted release on $2000 cash/$4000 bond. I am sickened over what may be obvious to you at this point, that the charges do not reflect their role in the death of my son. People with disabilities, including autism, are among our most vulnerable community members. It seems so unjust that a charge of endangering specifically relates to affecting the mental well-being of a vulnerable person yet they are not charged with the actual consequences of this criminal action. I’m currently working with our local representatives to start the process of pushing for new legislation in the state to hold perpetrators fully accountable for the consequences of their actions. The law for Endangering in NY currently states: “Under our law, a person is guilty of Endangering the Welfare of an Incompetent or Physically Disabled Person in the First Degree when he or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a person who is unable to care for himself or herself because of physical disability, mental disease or defect. The term "knowingly” has its own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of that term. A person KNOWINGLY acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a person who is unable to care for himself or herself because of physical disability, mental disease or defect when that person is aware that he or she is acting in such manner. Actual harm to the incompetent or physically disabled person need not result.” Currently under our criminal laws culpability for a persons suicide rests on the aspect of “aiding and abetting”, or, in practical terms, specifically aiding, directing or encouraging the suicide. This MUST change. Those that would intentionally cultivate an environment and/or circumstances specifically to use people with disabilities to commit a crime, need to be held accountable for the full range of actual damages they cause, including the death of their victim. We need #BaileysLaw to firmly establish... If a defendant is charged with endangering in the first degree, or another crime related and/or connected to a charge of endangering in the first degree (as in coconspirators/codefendant), whereby the events result in the victim’s suicide within reasonable proximity of the crime, defendants should be criminally charged for the victim’s death. This area of law, as it specifically relates to endangering, also needs to be updated to incorporate the disability standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Social Security Administration in trials. As it stands, the question of a successful trial seems tied to whether or not the victim has an IQ over 40, and can dress and feed oneself. This is an extremely low threshold for a successful trial against a perpetrator charged with endangering and is not in line with current state and federal laws to protect the disabled. There are an enormous number of people with autism, and other disabilities, who have a high IQ and can feed and clothe themselves but cannot fully meet their own needs in a manner that could be characterized as independent living. Bailey’s Law should protect anyone that can be considered a vulnerable person by including the state and federal standards of disability.   I urge you to support Bailey’s Law. It will not help my family but it will help many others. PLEASE, sign this petition to help me get it passed!  To view or VOTE YES on the #BaileysLaw bill (NY S.8541) you can visit https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s8541  - there is a link at this location for the identical Assembly version as well. To learn more about my beloved Bailey you can visit the guestbook at https://m.legacy.com/obituaries/poughkeepsiejournal/obituary.aspx?n=&pid=186269333&referrer=0&preview=True To follow our journey, visit https://www.facebook.com/BaileysBridges/ https://m.facebook.com/DearBaileyLoveMom/ & http://BaileysBridges.org/baileyslaw/ Sincerely, Gae Marie Cannon, Poughkeepsie, NY *6-17-18 Update: Our bill for Bailey’s Law passed in the NY Senate on 6-11-18 with a vote of 44/17. The bill is now in the NY Assembly (A.10874) and I’m pushing to have it passed before the end of the legislative session on 6-20-18.  The Ulster County Court has declined to take on the female’s case (the facilitator of this crime), and referred it back to the Town Court. This means that HER CHARGES WILL BE REDUCED from felony to misdemeanor or less- because Town Courts CANNOT process felonies. It is looking more and more like she will get 3 years of probation... To put this into context- a DWI, WITHOUT LOSS OF LIFE, can result in 3 years probation, over $1000 fine and revocation of drivers license...  I am disgusted.... these people KNEW they were committing a crime. KNEW they were targeting someone with a disability, and their actions resulted in the DEATH of their victim......  Please, please share our petition... This is just not right..  Targeting our vulnerable loved ones breaks a sacred social contract in our society and we must prevent this from happening to someone else...  8-15-18 Update: Our bill for Bailey’s Law is currently stuck in the Codes Committee of the Assembly but I am pushing forward with public support signatures as well as organizational and legislator support. Our bill now has 4 Assembly sponsors: Didi Barrett, Christine Pellegrino, Angelo Santabarbara, and David McDonough. This is immensely helpful but until this bill passes in the Assembly and is signed by Andrew Cuomo, we cannot stop pushing for more bill support.  Our next court hearing for the female’s case is on August 28th. It’s expected she will be offered a plea bargain of a reduced charge (felony Endangering in the 1st to misdemeanor Endangering) with a sentence of 3 years probation. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE FOR AN INTENTIONAL CRIME THAT RESULTED IN DEATH.  The male has not yet been brought up to our county for arraignment; he is still pending trial for Murder 2 in Westchester County in an unrelated case.  9-21-18 Update: Our last court appearance for Teator did not go as expected, thankfully. But know I have no idea what’s going to happen. Our next court date is Tuesday, 9-25-18. See update for more details.  12-5-18 Update: The court is moving forward with the golden plea deal for Teator- reduced charges, 3 years probation, and the gift of wiping out her completely unrelated charges in a totally separate court. The Thompson case has not started yet... I’m outraged. This is NOT JUSTICE or a deterrent for INTENTIONALLY victimizing an autistic 19 year old whereby the crime directly led to his death. Please, please, help me fix this so our story doesn’t become someone else’s.  What you can do to help:1. SHARE the petition and Bailey’s story, in person and online2. Go to our website and print free flyers for local venues and local bulletin boards in your town, and deliver them to all the neighbors on your street 3. Call agencies that support the disabled and/or elderly and ask them to join our coalition of support. You can give them the website address as a contact.                    4. Call your representatives, wherever you live, and tell them we need #BaileysLaw.5. Stay informed. The blood and guts of this journey is on our Facebook page Dear Bailey. Thank you so much for your support, your caring messages (yes, I read them all), and I hope you’ll stay with me through this process of fixing the law. With gratitude, Gae Marie 

A Mourning Mom *
16,902 supporters