New York Senate Bill S07308

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/9/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Prohibits the release of criminal history or any mental health history records by a police agency, prosecutorial agency or other law enforcement agency of individuals who were the subject of the use of force by a police or peace officer.

Summary

S07308 would add a new section to the New York Executive Law prohibiting police agencies, prosecutorial agencies, and other law enforcement agencies from publicly releasing, or otherwise disseminating, certain personal information about individuals who were the subject of a police or peace officer use-of-force incident. The covered information includes the person’s criminal history and any mental health history. The bill also bars sharing that information with news or media organizations. In practical terms, the measure creates a confidentiality rule for records or information tied to victims of police violence, limiting what agencies may disclose after a force incident. It applies whenever a police officer or peace officer uses force and the agency has jurisdiction over the incident. The bill would take effect 30 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend the Executive Law by creating a new section 845-f, imposing a direct restriction on disclosure practices by law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in New York. It would affect how agencies handle records and communications related to use-of-force incidents, especially any disclosure of criminal history or mental health history of the person involved. The measure would not appear to create a new reporting duty; instead, it limits public release and dissemination of specified information, including to the press.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or roll-call sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a privacy and victim-protection bill aimed at preventing potentially stigmatizing disclosures after police violence incidents. The available context suggests a protective, civil-rights-oriented purpose, but there is no evidence in the record provided of formal support or opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between privacy for individuals subjected to police force and transparency in law enforcement operations. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting victims from public exposure of criminal or mental health history, while opponents may argue that the restriction could limit public access to information relevant to accountability, oversight, or reporting on use-of-force incidents. Because no transcripts or votes are included, no specific legislators or stakeholder groups are identified as taking those positions in the available record.