Supreme Court questions New York prison policy

Listen to this article

The Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in a case that challenged a New York state policy that leads to extrajudicial incarceration, but raised questions about its propriety.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case after the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling.

In New York state, prison inmates who earn enough “good-time credits” before the end of their sentences can be conditionally released.

But inmates classified as “level three sex offenders,” must first show that they won’t be living within 1,000 feet of a school.

In New York City, because it’s so densely populated, that’s not easy to do. Sometimes inmates can’t find a place that meets the requirement so they end up staying in prison beyond the end of their sentences.

In the specific case addressed by the Court of Appeals, and subsequently denied certiorari by SCOTUS, Angel Ortiz could not find a place to live that met the state requirement and he wound up staying in prison for two years beyond his sentence.

“Although Ortiz’s petition does not satisfy this Court’s criteria for granting certiorari, I write to emphasize that New York’s residential prohibition, as applied to New York City, raises serious constitutional concerns,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.

Ortiz was sentenced to 10 years in prison and five years of post-release supervision. In anticipation of his release from prison, Ortiz asked to live with his mother and daughter in a New York City apartment, but the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) denied the request because the home was within 1,000 feet of a school.

Ortiz proposed dozens of other locations, including several homeless shelters, but DOCCS rejected all of them. As a result, Ortiz spent the entirety of his 17 months of conditional release in prison.

After serving the full 10-year sentence, Ortiz was transferred to a state prison labeled as a “residential treatment facility,” according to Sotomayor’s statement.

Ortiz spent eight months in two such facilities.

“He lived behind barbed wire, in a general prison population, in conditions nearly identical to those in which he served his sentence. All told, because of New York’s residency prohibition, Ortiz was imprisoned for over two years longer than he otherwise would have been,” she wrote.

New York’s policy requires indefinite incarceration for indigent sex offenders, according to Sotomayor’s statement.

“Rather than tailor its policy to the geography of New York City or provide shelter options for this group, New York has chosen to imprison people who cannot afford compliant housing past both their conditional release date and the expiration of their maximum sentences,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The State’s denial of Ortiz’s liberty interest in his release demands heightened scrutiny,” she wrote.

“No one doubts that New York’s goal of preventing sexual violence toward children is legitimate and compelling, but New York nonetheless must advance that objective through rational means,” she wrote.

Courts, law enforcement agencies, and academic researchers are in agreement that residency restrictions do not reduce recidivism and may actually increase the risk of re-offending, according to the statement.

“Despite the empirical evidence, legislatures and agencies are often not receptive to the plight of people convicted of sex offenses and their struggles in returning to their communities. Nevertheless, the Constitution protects all people, and it prohibits the deprivation of liberty based solely on speculation and fear,” Sotomayor wrote.

She wrote that the issue is of “grave importance.”

“It’s only a matter of time until this Court will come to address the question presented in this case.”

“New York should not wait for this Court to resolve the question whether a state can jail someone beyond their parole eligibility date, or even beyond their mandatory release date, solely because they cannot comply with a restrictive residency requirement,” she wrote.

“I hope that New York will choose to reevaluate its policy in a manner that gives due regard to the constitutional liberty interests of people like Ortiz,” Sotomayor wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035