New York Assembly Bill A07018

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Allows statements by police officers to be evidence of sex trafficking.

Summary

This bill amends New York’s Criminal Procedure Law section 190.30 to create a new rule for grand jury proceedings involving sex trafficking offenses. Specifically, it would allow a written or oral statement made by a police officer to be received as evidence of the facts stated in that statement when the grand jury is considering offenses defined in Penal Law sections 230.34 and 230.34-a. In practical terms, the bill expands the types of evidence that may be presented to a grand jury in sex trafficking cases by expressly authorizing police-officer statements to be used as proof of the facts they describe. The bill takes effect 30 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would modify the evidentiary rules governing grand jury proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Law, but only in cases involving sex trafficking offenses. It would affect prosecutors, law enforcement, defense counsel, and grand juries by making police-officer statements admissible as evidence of factual allegations in those proceedings, potentially easing the presentation of sex trafficking cases and changing how probable cause is established in those matters.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a law-enforcement tool aimed at strengthening sex trafficking prosecutions. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. The caption and structure suggest a generally pro-enforcement intent, with the likely policy goal of improving prosecutorial efficiency in trafficking cases.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the evidentiary expansion itself: allowing police-officer statements to be received as evidence of the facts stated may raise concerns about reliability, hearsay-like use of statements, and reduced scrutiny in grand jury proceedings. Supporters would likely view the change as necessary to help investigate and prosecute sex trafficking, while critics may worry it gives too much weight to law-enforcement assertions without live testimony or cross-examination.