S00660 would tighten New York rules governing pre-arraignment detention and add new transparency requirements for people held by police. The bill defines “without unnecessary delay” in the Criminal Procedure Law to mean promptly and, in any event, within 24 hours of custody, and it directs that if a government agency cannot meet that requirement, the person must be immediately released. It also creates a detained persons registry for cities with populations of one million or more, which would require the New York City Police Department to maintain a searchable online system listing the names, ages, and locations of people taken into custody so that authorized defender organizations can locate them.
The registry provisions are narrowly structured around defense access and confidentiality. Only defender organizations contracted by the city would be authorized users, the registry would be administered solely by the NYPD, and information would have to be removed and destroyed once a person is issued an appearance ticket, summons, arraigned, or released. The bill also bars disclosure of registry information to non-local law enforcement, non-local government employees, and others who are not authorized users, except for use by defender organizations in client representation.
The bill would also amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules to strengthen habeas corpus challenges to detention beyond 24 hours before arraignment. In such cases, the bill creates an evidentiary presumption that the detention was avoidable, unnecessary, and unlawful unless the government rebuts that presumption by clear and convincing evidence showing compelling facts and circumstances that made the delay unavoidable and actually necessary for each petitioner.
Overall, the available voting history suggests the bill has drawn meaningful support but not unanimity. It passed the Senate Codes Committee by 10-2 in January 2025 and later passed the Senate floor 36-25, indicating a divided chamber but a clear majority in favor. A later committee vote in January 2026 again showed support, though with some opposition, suggesting the measure remained active and contested.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s strict 24-hour detention limit, the immediate-release remedy, and the limits on law-enforcement access to the registry. Supporters appear to favor stronger due-process protections, faster access to counsel, and better location information for detained people, while opponents are likely concerned about operational burdens on police, restrictions on information sharing, and the possibility that the presumption against longer detention could interfere with investigations or public-safety needs.
The bill would amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the Civil Practice Law and Rules to impose a stricter standard for pre-arraignment detention, require immediate release when the 24-hour requirement is not met, and create a new detained persons registry in New York City. It would primarily affect police departments, detention practices, defender organizations, and habeas corpus litigation, while adding confidentiality and access restrictions around custody information.
The bill appears to have a generally supportive but divided reception. Committee and floor votes show enough backing to advance the measure, but the 36-25 floor result and the no votes in committee indicate substantial concern among some legislators about the bill’s practical and legal effects. The discussion context provided does not include transcripts, so the sentiment can be inferred mainly from the voting pattern and the bill’s rights-expanding design.
The most notable disagreements likely center on whether a hard 24-hour detention rule is workable in practice, whether immediate release is an appropriate remedy for noncompliance, and whether the presumption against longer detention would unduly constrain law enforcement. Another likely point of contention is the registry’s limited access model: supporters may see it as a defense-rights and transparency tool, while critics may object to restricting access to local police and defender organizations and to the mandated deletion and nondisclosure rules.