Makes all offenses qualifying offenses for bail where the principal is a non-citizen; requires courts remand without bail when any principal charged with an offense has an outstanding United States immigration and customs enforcement detainer; includes federal laws, rules, and regulations in the definition of offense; allows police officers to detain certain non-citizens; reinstates the maximum sentence for misdemeanors as three hundred sixty-five days.
A07565 would substantially change New York’s criminal procedure and sentencing laws as they apply to non-citizens and people subject to federal immigration enforcement. The bill adds new bail-remand rules so that any felony or misdemeanor charged against a non-citizen becomes a qualifying offense for bail purposes, and it requires courts to commit to sheriff custody any person who comes under court control while subject to an outstanding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer. It also authorizes police to arrest a person when they have reasonable cause to believe the person is a non-citizen subject to an ICE detainer, administrative warrant, or judicial warrant.
The bill further expands the statutory definition of “offense” to include conduct covered by federal immigration laws, rules, and regulations, and it repeals a prior provision limiting misdemeanor jail sentences. It restores the maximum sentence for class A misdemeanors to one year and removes the existing cap for unclassified misdemeanors, aligning sentencing language with the bill’s broader public-safety and immigration-enforcement approach. In addition, it amends multiple bail-related provisions in the criminal procedure law to make non-citizen status itself a trigger for bail eligibility and remand rules.
The bill’s impact would be significant for courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and law enforcement, because it would require judges to treat non-citizen defendants differently from other defendants at arraignment and bail hearings, and it would create mandatory custody consequences tied to ICE detainers. It would also broaden the reach of state criminal law terminology by expressly incorporating federal immigration law into the definition of “offense,” potentially affecting arrest, detention, and sentencing decisions across a range of cases.
The available voting history suggests the bill drew some support but also meaningful opposition: the Assembly Codes Committee voted 16-6 to hold it for consideration. That indicates the proposal was serious enough to advance in committee discussion, but not without concern. No transcript excerpts are available, so the specific arguments are not recorded here, but the structure of the bill indicates likely contention over immigration enforcement, due process, bail reform, and whether state courts and police should be required to act on federal detainers and non-citizen status.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a public-safety and immigration-enforcement measure, but it would also mark a major departure from current bail and detention rules by making immigration status a central factor in criminal custody decisions.
The bill would amend the criminal procedure law and penal law to create new mandatory bail/remand rules for non-citizens, authorize arrest based on ICE detainers and related federal warrants, expand the definition of “offense” to include federal immigration laws, and restore the maximum sentence for class A misdemeanors to one year while removing the existing cap for unclassified misdemeanors. It would directly affect courts, sheriffs, police officers, prosecutors, and criminal defendants, especially non-citizens subject to immigration enforcement.
The bill’s committee history shows mixed sentiment: it was advanced enough to be considered by the Assembly Codes Committee, but the 16-6 vote to hold it for consideration suggests substantial reservations. In the absence of transcript remarks, the overall tone appears divided, with supporters likely favoring stronger detention and immigration-enforcement tools and opponents likely concerned about civil liberties, due process, and the treatment of non-citizens in the criminal justice system.
The main points of contention are the bill’s treatment of non-citizens as a separate bail category, the requirement that courts remand people with outstanding ICE detainers, and the authorization for police to arrest based on immigration detainers or warrants. Critics would likely object that these provisions tie state criminal procedure to federal immigration enforcement and may raise due-process and equal-protection concerns, while supporters would likely argue they are necessary to ensure court appearance and public safety. The sentencing changes, especially restoring a one-year maximum for misdemeanors, may also draw attention as a broader tough-on-crime shift.