Not that anyone would want to ride the subways right now, but the New York City Bar Association has come out in strong opposition to a proposal that would permit the MTA to ban people from trains and buses in New York based on little more than accusations relating to sex offenses. The ban is complicated and unwieldy — it would probably require some form of highly intrusive facial recognition technology to enforce; its provisions are discussed in detail in this new report from the City Bar. Principal attorney Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma chaired the Working Group that put together the report. The City Bar is an association of about 24,000 lawyers from around the world, including both criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors.
Bottom line is that the ban is currently included in Gov. Cuomo’s annual state budget, which means passage is practically automatic unless lawmakers step up to take it out, as the City Bar urges them to do. It will create a new enforcement scheme giving the MTA discretion to ban any person adjudicated as a Level Three sex offender as well as anyone who receives three tickets from the MTA relating to sexual conduct or assault, even if they ultimately beat the tickets. Just who in the MTA will exercise this discretion is mysterious. One reason the City Bar opposes the ban is it appears to violate due process by failing to give adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. It is also excessively punitive to the point where it will actually undermine public safety by preventing people from working, going to school, and visiting friends and family — all activities that tend to prevent criminal recidivism. The ban undermines one of America’s dearest freedoms, the freedom to travel. It will be ripe for constitutional challenge from the outset. A similar ban proposed last year was voted down amid vocal opposition from criminal defense groups.
Charges of sexual offenses are incredibly serious and have consequences that affect people for the rest of their lives. The subway ban appears to be just one more attempt to pile punishment on a group with zero political clout. The City Bar’s efforts to speak for them, and for others affected by the misguided ban, should be a welcome part of the debate.