NYCLU Statement on NYPD's Use of 50-a

WASHINGTON – Leading experts in community safety and key appropriations committee members urged Congress to oppose federal funding cuts for programs that keep communities safe at a press conference at the House Triangle today. The press conference comes during the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) second annual Community Safety Week, and as the Trump administration continues to cut funding for essential services that make communities safer and more secure, like programs that provide mentorship to children, reduce violence, help people find housing, create employment opportunities, and provide addiction treatment and mental healthcare. “As a member of Congress, I want to express my outrage that this administration thinks it has the authority to pocket the money we lawfully appropriated for the purpose of helping people who need help,” said Representative Watson Coleman (NJ-12). “When my colleagues and I voted to approve this spending — on a bipartisan basis — it was our intention that the money would be used in the manner we laid out. It was our goal to halt human trafficking, prevent opioid overdoses, protect domestic violence victims, treat mental illness, and stop hate crimes. And I would really appreciate it if the Trump administration would get out of our way. I call on this administration to release this funding and allow these organizations to carry out the good work that they do to keep us all safe.” Across the country, mayors, governors, service providers, and everyday people are raising alarms about the devastating impact of funding cuts on their communities. Despite these warnings and pleas for help from local community leaders and experts, the Trump administration has cut hundreds of millions in funding for proven solutions that foster community safety. “These are some of the most thoroughly vetted and competitive public safety grants in the federal system,” said Theron Pride, former deputy associate attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice. “Communities across the country rely on these funds to implement evidence-based strategies that interrupt violence, support victims, and strengthen public trust. Cutting them now — after they’ve already been awarded — is not just disruptive, it’s dangerous. We’re pulling the rug out from under jurisdictions and organizations that are doing the hard, necessary work to make our communities safer.” Speakers included organizations directly impacted by the Trump administration’s recent federal funding cuts. “The sweeping cuts to DOJ funding for victim services risk the lives and recovery of countless survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other forms of violence and abuse. Safety is a human right, and this funding is essential, keeping programs accessible to all survivors, regardless of race, immigration status, gender identity or sexual orientation,” said Liz Roberts, CEO of Safe Horizon, the nation’s largest victim service provider. “These cuts communicate a blatant disregard for the danger survivors face when they cannot get help in a crisis. We call on Congress and the administration to restore these programs without delay.” “Community violence intervention has proven to dramatically reduce gun violence in communities throughout this nation,” said Jess Eddy, co-founder of LiveFree OKC, a violence intervention program in Oklahoma. “Americans across the political spectrum support this smart approach that prevents crime from occurring in the first place, supports victims and impacted communities, and provides for the peace we all deserve. If we want safe communities, we need to commit to fully funding these programs.” Additional speakers highlighted how cuts to vital programs put additional strain on law enforcement, leave communities unsupported, and fly in the face of what the majority of Americans want. “The federal government is ignoring what actually keeps our families and communities safe,” said Oni Blair, executive director of the ACLU of Texas. “As a mom of three kids and as a Texan working for a state where everyone can build a good life, I want Congress to invest in real community safety: mentoring programs for children, job opportunities for parents, and mental health support for families. Instead, my taxpayer money is being wasted on an unlawful deportation scheme that denies people of a fair legal process and tears families apart.” Recent polling conducted by the ACLU in partnership with YouGov shows Americans want elected leaders to focus on prevention to make communities safer, with 79 percent of voters across the political spectrum saying that addressing poverty, economic despair, and lack of opportunities would help improve safety in communities a lot or some. 60 percent are concerned that President Trump is going too far in slashing the federal government, eliminating important programs and critical services that many Americans rely on. “We have decades of research making it clear that incarceration is one of the most expensive and least effective public safety strategies,” said Elissa Johnson, vice president, Criminal Justice Campaigns at FWD.us. “This research is echoed by voters from across the political spectrum, who have been overexposed to the harms of America’s incarceration crisis, and understand it does not make our communities safer. Serious safety agendas prioritize investments in community initiatives and direct services with a proven record of advancing public safety. We’ve turned a corner in understanding what drives safety, and we can’t afford to go backward. The evidence is clear: safety and justice go hand in hand.” Earlier in the week, leaders from the national ACLU and 10 state affiliates from across the country, as well as grassroots advocates, public health experts, and violence intervention specialists, met with members of Congress and held briefings, urging them to allocate money for solutions that prevent crime through federal appropriations streams. “Over these last several decades, the U.S. has made significant progress on public safety, said Thea Sebastian, founder & executive director of the Futures Institute. “But today, thanks to recent funding cuts and administrative reorganizations, we’re jeopardizing this progress — and, in so doing, putting families everywhere at risk. This week, I’m delighted to join 100 other organizations nationwide to launch a Community Safety Agenda that invests in what actually keeps people safe — housing, summer jobs, violence intervention, alternative response, youth programs, and more. This evidence-based agenda is a blueprint for how we can move America forward, not back, while building a 21st approach to safety.” Livestream available here.

ATLANTA, GA— Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, and the Southern Center for Human Rights filed Coronell, et al. v. Georgia, a class action lawsuit brought by people denied an individual determination of bail and Women on the Rise, a grassroots organization led by formerly incarcerated women that advocates for ending cash bail and pretrial incarceration. The lawsuit seeks to strike down Senate Bill 63, a Georgia law passed in 2024, that has led to thousands of people with low or no income being kept in jail before having a trial, even when a judge believes the person should have been released, with no risk to the public. The lawsuit challenges SB 63’s mandatory cash bond provisions under the due process clause of the Georgia state constitution.  The plaintiffs ask the court to declare SB 63 unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction that prevents state actors from enforcing its mandatory cash bond provisions. “Women on the Rise’s involvement in this lawsuit is important to us because of the injustices we see that are happening to those the system says are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Denying bail can undermine this principle, as people may be held in custody despite not having been convicted of a crime,” said Robyn Hasan-Simpson, executive director of Women on the Rise. “Our hope is that this gives access to everyone to gain their freedom while addressing the charges that have been brought against them, for those to maintain employment, housing, and fulfilling the role they have as members in our community.”  SB 63 makes cash bond mandatory for dozens of charges, most of them misdemeanors. When a person is arrested and accused of such an offense, SB 63 forces a judge to set a cash bond that the person must pay to get bailed out of jail. When setting bail, judges are no longer allowed to take into account critical facts and circumstances — such as a person’s strong family connections, local community ties, and employment record; the absence of past criminal convictions; and a history of following court requirements —that show that a person can be safely released under less-restrictive conditions while still assuring they will return to court and not endanger the public. This inevitably leads to people being incarcerated, often in dangerous jails, simply because of poverty. “Under SB 63, people who cannot afford to pay a cash bond will be forced to languish in jail, often for weeks or months,” said Julian Clark, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “By punishing those unable to pay for their freedom with incarceration SB 63 imposes significant societal costs — ones that are disproportionately incurred by Black and brown communities. No one’s freedom should depend on how much money they have.” Plaintiff Sierrah Coronell has been incarcerated for 77 days because she cannot afford to pay her $600 cash bond. As directed by SB 63, the judge was not permitted to consider whether any release conditions other than cash bond would reasonably ensure her appearance in court and the safety of the public. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Coronell was the primary caregiver of her five children, ages 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15. As a result of her incarceration, Ms. Coronell is unable to care for her children, leaving her mother and her children’s father to be their sole caretakers in her absence. Ms. Coronell’s incarceration has also forced her to miss her oldest daughter's 15th birthday. “Georgia is a particularly cruel state that locks up a higher percentage of its population than any independent democratic country in the world. This lawsuit would bring an end to holding the most vulnerable people at Fulton County Jail and in all jails across the state simply because they can’t afford to pay bail. These practices are wasteful, costly, cause overcrowding, and do not improve public safety. We are committed to ending these cruel and unconstitutional policies in Georgia,” said Andrea Young, executive director, ACLU of Georgia. “I’ve met many people in Georgia jails who cannot get out because they cannot buy their way out. People who don’t have loved ones who can pay a couple hundred dollars, or in some cases as little as 10 dollars, to post their bail.  People who the courts have deemed ready for release but remain in jail for no other reason than their low income.  SB 63 isn’t making us safer.  It’s keeping our jails full, separating people from their jobs, families, and homes, and all but guaranteeing that people leave worse than when they came in.  It’s difficult to think of a more backwards policy,” said Lachlan Athanasiou, legal fellow in SCHR’s Impact Litigation Unit.

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration today signed two new executive orders that would target sanctuary cities and direct law enforcement to pursue legal action against state or local officials accused of “obstructing criminal or immigration law enforcement.” The executive order targeting sanctuary cities directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security to prosecute state or local officials who refuse to assist with the Trump administration’s plan to deport immigrants who contribute to the economy and communities nationwide. It also penalizes states that provide in-state tuition to noncitizens. The order echoes previous guidance issued by the DOJ that suggested state and local officials would face federal prosecution for limiting the amount of assistance they provide to federal agencies carrying out immigration enforcement. The second executive order directs law enforcement to pursue legal action against state officials, seeks to prevent accountability for law enforcement misconduct, and encourages police brutality. In response to this news, Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU’s Equality Division, had the following reaction: “These executive orders are just the latest escalation in the Trump administration’s shakedown of cities, states, and elected officials that refuse to offer up local resources for the administration’s mass deportation and detention agenda. States and cities have the right to decide how best to use local resources, and they overwhelmingly agree that taxpayer dollars are better spent investing in programs that improve public safety and support our communities – not policies that tear them apart by deporting our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. Similarly, President Trump does not control the more 17,000 local law enforcement agencies across this country. That authority remains, appropriately, with the people in cities and towns nationwide, who must continue pushing for reforms that protect rights and improve public safety.” “These orders have no legal basis and are another example of President Trump’s relentless campaign to attack the integrity of our legal system and separation of powers by targeting judges, lawyers, and other officials who refuse to comply with his extreme agenda.”

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.