Provides that upon motion and after an opportunity to be heard, a court may order the defendant in a family offense proceeding to turn control of a connected device over to a family or household member or, if that is not possible, to have such connected device disabled by the manufacturer.
Summary
S05338 would amend New York’s criminal procedure law to give courts an additional remedy in family offense proceedings involving connected devices. After a motion and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard, a court could order the defendant to transfer control of a connected device to a family or household member. If that is not possible, the court could instead order the device disabled by the manufacturer.
The bill is aimed at situations where a defendant’s control over smart or internet-connected devices may be used to harass, monitor, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with a family or household member. It creates a court-authorized mechanism to shift control away from the defendant and, where necessary, to disable the device entirely.
Impact
The bill would add a new clause to Criminal Procedure Law section 530.12, which governs orders of protection and related relief in family offense proceedings. It would expand judicial authority in domestic violence and family offense cases by allowing courts to address connected devices specifically, rather than relying only on existing general protective-order remedies. The practical effect would fall on defendants, family or household members, courts, and potentially device manufacturers asked to disable devices.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, victim-safety-oriented response to technology-enabled abuse. The overall sentiment inferred from the proposal is supportive of giving courts more tools to prevent misuse of connected devices in family offense cases.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope and enforceability of the remedy. Ordering a defendant to surrender control of a connected device, or requiring a manufacturer to disable it, could raise practical questions about ownership, privacy, due process, and technical feasibility. Another possible issue is whether the court should have authority to compel third-party manufacturers to act, especially when the device is shared, embedded in a home system, or difficult to disable without affecting other users.
Same As
Provides that upon motion and after an opportunity to be heard, a court may order the defendant in a family offense proceeding to turn control of a connected device over to a family or household member or, if that is not possible, to have such connected device disabled by the manufacturer.
Provides that upon motion and after an opportunity to be heard, a court may order the defendant in a family offense proceeding to turn control of a connected device over to a family or household member or, if that is not possible, to have such connected device disabled by the manufacturer.
Relates to coercive control; provides that the family court and the criminal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over acts which constitute coercive control; provides that courts may issue orders of protection upon a finding of coercive control; directs the office of court administration, in consultation with the office for the prevention of domestic violence and certain organizations, to develop and administer training for judges and court clerks on coercive control.
Relates to coercive control; provides that the family court and the criminal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over acts which constitute coercive control; provides that courts may issue orders of protection upon a finding of coercive control; directs the office of court administration, in consultation with the office for the prevention of domestic violence and certain organizations, to develop and administer training for judges and court clerks on coercive control.
Enacts "Karilyn's law"; provides that the court set the date for proceedings relating to family visitation under a guardianship petition for not more than ten days from the signing of the order to show cause; provides that visitation shall be a rebuttable presumption.
Criminal Proceedings; the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in a criminal case to the defendant upon such defendant making a successful motion to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for misconduct in connection with the case; provide
An Act to Require the Cooperation of Original Manufacturers of Electronic Devices to Facilitate the Repair of Those Devices by Device Owners and Independent Repair Providers