Enacts Alexa and Lindsey's law; prohibits disabling safety features in motor vehicles; provides enhanced penalties where it causes an accident that harms or kills another person; provides that if multiple people are harmed or killed as a result of an unsafe vehicle modification a consecutive sentence may be imposed.
S10423, titled “Alexa and Lindsey’s law,” would make it unlawful to intentionally disable a vehicle safety feature and then operate the vehicle on a public highway while that feature remains disabled. The bill defines “vehicle safety feature” broadly to include equipment and technology designed to prevent crashes, reduce injuries or fatalities, improve driver awareness, or enhance vehicle control, such as seat belts, airbags, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind spot detection, electronic stability control, and backup cameras.
The bill also creates two new crimes in the Penal Law for harm caused by driving with disabled safety features. If a person operating a vehicle with a disabled safety feature causes serious physical injury, the offense would be assault while operating a vehicle with a disabled vehicle safety feature, a class D felony. If the conduct causes a death, the offense would be manslaughter while operating a vehicle with a disabled vehicle safety feature, a class C felony. In addition, the bill amends sentencing rules so courts may impose consecutive sentences when multiple victims are injured or killed in a single incident involving these offenses.
The bill would add a new section to the Vehicle and Traffic Law and two new offenses to the Penal Law, creating a specific prohibition on disabling vehicle safety systems and new felony penalties when that conduct results in serious injury or death. It would also modify the state’s consecutive sentencing statute to allow courts to stack sentences for multiple counts under the new offenses when multiple victims suffer injury or death from the same act or omission. The practical effect is to increase criminal liability for tampering with or bypassing modern vehicle safety technology and to give prosecutors and courts stronger tools in multi-victim crashes.
The bill’s framing and title suggest a strong public-safety and victim-protection purpose, and the text reflects a punitive approach toward intentional disabling of safety systems. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded support/opposition to gauge broader sentiment. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears intended to respond to serious crash harms and to deter dangerous vehicle modifications.
The main policy issue likely to arise is how broadly “vehicle safety feature” is defined and whether the law could reach aftermarket modifications, repairs, customization, or temporary deactivation of systems for legitimate reasons. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s criminalization threshold: it requires intentional disabling for the traffic offense, but the resulting felony exposure could be significant if a crash occurs, raising questions about proof, causation, and proportionality of punishment. The consecutive-sentencing provision may also draw scrutiny because it allows additional punishment when multiple victims are involved in a single incident.