Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

Legal Research

: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

New York Governor's Veto Message --A7863/S5565 -- Providing Police Officer Status to Court Officers

By David Badertscher, PLL

divfont size=2The December 19, 2008 New York Law Journal includes an article Paterson Kills Bill That Would Give Police Offcer Status to Court Officers.br/br/For your information, the following is Governor Paterson's veto message for that bill:br/br/VETO MESSAGE - No. 180br/br/TO THE SENATE:br/br/I am returning herewith, without my approval, the following bill:br/br/Senate Bill Number 5565-A, entitled:br/br/AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to reclas-br/sifying court officers of the unified court system under the defi-br/nition of police officer; and to repeal certain provisions of suchbr/law relating theretobr/br/NOT APPROVEDbr/br/Uniformed court officers of the unified court system currently havebr/the legal status and powers of peace officers. This bill would amend thebr/law to make them police officers.br/br/Court officers provide invaluable service by maintaining order andbr/providing security in court rooms, buildings, and grounds. They consti-br/tute an effective, highly trained and professional force. Their dili-br/gence protects everyone who has occasion to be around courts, includingbr/judges, lawyers, jurors, witnesses, and members of the public. If thisbr/bill were purely an expression of the gratitude and respect that courtbr/officers deserve, and we owe, then I would whole-heartedly support it.br/br/This bill, however, is not the appropriate way to voice our support.br/The status that the bill would confer is one that should be limited tobr/those whose primary responsibilities are to exercise traditional policebr/functions including the investigation and apprehension of criminals.br/Such tasks, however, are not the primary function of court officers.br/While these officers do sometimes have occasion to exercise law enforce-br/ment powers, their primary and invaluable function is to ensure thebr/order and security of courts. The broad powers that court officersbr/already have as peace officers should be sufficient for the duties thatbr/they are routinely asked to perform. I do not believe there has been anybr/showing that court officers need authority to execute warrants orbr/perform other actions that are assigned only to police officers.br/br/While the sponsors of this bill claim that it would have no fiscalbr/impact, I have been advised that in all likelihood it would result inbr/substantially increased costs. Court officers already are required tobr/undergo a very extensive course of training that is tailored to theirbr/specific needs. If they were required also to undergo all trainingbr/required of police officers, that additional requirement would undoubt-br/edly incur costs. Moreover, police officer status has traditionally beenbr/an important factor in the extension of various benefits, such as bind-br/ing arbitration, that could also impose added costs on the State. Over-br/all, the Division of the Budget has projected that the bill would resultbr/in new costs, both in the short term and continuing, totaling tens ofbr/millions of dollars. The State can ill afford such a price in currentbr/circumstances.br/br/The prohibitive cost, however, is not the most fundamental issue.br/Court officers of the unified court system -- much like correctionsbr/officers, probation officers, and parole officers -- are involved withbr/the criminal justice system in ways that justify peace officer status,br/br/but not in the same way as the members of the State and local forcesbr/primarily responsible for the policing of crime. This difference isbr/ample reason to retain the existing classification of court officers. Asbr/much as they deserve our gratitude and respect, we should show it inbr/more appropriate ways.br/br/The bill is disapproved. (signed) DAVID A. PATERSONbr/br//font/div

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on December 19, 2008 (boomark / email).