Establishes the crimes of harassment of a law enforcement officer or a member of the officer's family in the first degree and second degree.
This bill creates two new offenses in the Penal Law: harassment of a law enforcement officer or a member of the officer’s family in the first degree and in the second degree. The first-degree offense applies when a person, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm, communicates or causes a threatening communication to be made by phone, computer, email, mail, or other electronic or written means, where the communication threatens physical harm or property damage and is likely to cause reasonable fear. The second-degree offense covers physical contact, attempts or threats of physical contact, following the officer or family member in public, or engaging in a repeated course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys and serves no legitimate purpose.
The bill defines “law enforcement officer” broadly to include active or retired city and state officers, peace officers, sheriffs and deputies, probation and parole officers, marshals, correctional officers, fire marshals, certain federal law enforcement personnel, and similar officials whose duties involve arrests, searches, seizures, enforcement of laws, or custody and supervision of incarcerated individuals. It also extends protection to members of the officer’s same family or household, as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law. The first-degree offense is classified as a class E felony, and the second-degree offense as a class B misdemeanor, and the act would take effect immediately upon enactment.
If enacted, the bill would add two new harassment crimes to New York’s Penal Law and expand criminal liability for conduct directed at law enforcement officers and their family or household members. It would create a felony-level offense for threatening communications and a misdemeanor-level offense for physical harassment, stalking-like conduct, or repeated annoying conduct without legitimate purpose. The measure would affect prosecutors, courts, and defendants by providing new charges specifically tied to the victim’s status as a law enforcement officer or related family member, and it would broaden existing protections to include retired officers and a wide range of public safety personnel.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger protections for law enforcement personnel and their families. The bill’s framing suggests a public-safety and anti-harassment purpose, with no documented opposition or amendment activity in the supplied record. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative controversy in the available context.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s broad scope: it covers not only active officers but also retired officers, federal personnel, correctional staff, and family or household members, which could raise concerns about overcriminalization or the breadth of protected classes. Another possible issue is that the second-degree offense includes conduct that “alarms or seriously annoys” and serves no legitimate purpose, language that can sometimes prompt debate over vagueness or First Amendment implications. No specific supporters or opponents are identified in the provided materials, and no committee discussion or votes are available to show active disagreement.