NY State Assembly Bill A416 | Hacker News Reader

NY State Assembly Bill A416

nysenate.gov

28 pointsrglover65 comments

the police power of the state regarding public health is really quite broad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

So they want to detain people in medical facilities who may be contagious rather than putting them in standard facilities.

Reading this while squinting, I could imagine this being manipulated by bad actors. On the surface though it seems benign?

There's a lot of slippery wording and room for malfeasance, specifically relating to how a person's behavior will influence the terms of their detainment.

Section 3, Article 9:

> A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

That should terrify people. It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape."

---

There's also lack of clarity on where you will be kept if arrested:

Section 1, Article 2:

> SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.

---

Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing indefinite detainment and forced vaccination/medication.

This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape.

Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?

That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things.

That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.

So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy?

Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.

If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc.

The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point.

Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.

Sounds great, as long as I can recover my losses resulting from your irresponsibility.

Freedom isn’t free, dude. As executor of a COVID victim’s estate, if I can trace the infection to your idiocy, I want a lien on your house to meet the obligations of your victim.

Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?

> Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?

Do you place more importance on the health of your business over others' lives?

Yes, if the health of that business supports the health of my life, which for many is true (I'm fortunate to work online so am not directly affected). That line of argumentation is just emotional manipulation disguised as moral superiority.

A lot of people will die or be placed in the crosshairs of death indirectly because of unemployment. The same can be said about the people who can't get treatment for non-COVID related illnesses due to hospital restrictions.

> I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary

A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment.

> I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals

There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. Even if not, staying in close proximity to them while trying to get them to follow the guidelines increases your own risk of getting infected.

> A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment.

That may be, but that's the beauty of natural selection. If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail. Though it may inconvenience you, if you're smart enough to, you have the ability to move away from large groups of people (and take advantage of alternatives like grocery delivery, etc).

> There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines.

That's already happening and exacerbated by the media.

> If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail.

They're not living in isolation from the rest of society. Their actions are affecting those who are trying to take precautions. This is analagous to the situation where a portion of the population is not vaccinated and herd immunity to certain viral diseases can no longer be maintained.

>>> I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals

>> There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines.

> That's already happening

So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement?

> So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement?

Precedent. Once this is written in to law, it opens the flood gates to a whole lot worse.

“Lineage will fail”... rofl. I’m glad you took the argument down to the level of bizarre pseudo-darwinism.

Textbook example of why civilized society has the keep the animal instincts of portions of the population in check.

>A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment.

Really? To whose satisfaction?

Because aside from everyone under 18 being proxied through their parents/guardians and a limited subset of wards of the State/people granting powerof attorney for reason X, Y, Z, the legal reality is that yes, in fact by definition, those people do have the capability to make that judgement.

Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do, even when presented with what you consider the samme set of facts and reliable sources. Let's be clear.

You're more annoyed you can't compel them, or have the government compel them to do what you want. While whatyou should be thankful for is the fact they generally can't do the same thing to you, leaving everyone at relative liberty to live life as they see fit.

You are free to do as thou wilt. Take your precautions. I certainly won't judge you unreasonably.

But stow the arrogant and dismissive attitude around others exercising and having the same liberties you enjoy and using them to different ends. Further, the fact that none of these types of legislation ever include sunset dates is more evidence that people are just looking to centralize and enshrine broad and disruptive enforcement powers without regard to the overall effect on the landscape of our overall set of civil liberties.

> Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do

Please don't attribute things I never said to me.

Again - to be clear - you're saying that people should be able to legally resist arrest because it would otherwise set a precedent for further government intrusions on liberty?

No, I'm saying that the proposed legislation in its current form is dangerous. This isn't just some temporary mandate, they're looking to make this law.

> This is no different from being arrested, is it?

This is very different. For example, you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged.

This skips over the arrest, the fair trial, and the rule of law and goes directly to imprisonment for an arbitrary length of time.

Probable cause under the law is more strict than “the police think”. Even the significantly lower standard of reasonable suspicion is slightly more than “the police think” and yet is not enough to make an arrest.

In my state, if you are driving a car, display signs of alcohol intoxication and refuse to submit to a test, you will be taken into custody, have a blood test administered and driving privileges revoked.

Same story, tested in court 1000x.

Sure. That is articulable probable cause, namely that you displayed signs X, Y, and Z of alcohol intoxication while driving. That's more than "a cops thinks", but rather that a cop can articulate specific evidence to suggest it's the case.

You can observe and articulate specific evidence to suggest that an individual is infected with COVID-19, or that they were in a situation where exposure makes infection probable.

Great. So make the law that people who have had high probability exposure must self-quarantine and make it an arrestable offense to be both subject to and breaking of a mandatory self-quarantine. I don't mind that being an arrestable offense. I do mind "I don't like the how Spooky23 looks today and they were out in public in a high-risk area, so lock them up!" "I don't like Spooky23 so I'm going to force them to stay in their house or a place of their choosing" has less potential for abuse.

Sounds like you don’t have a problem with the legislation that is the topic of the thread.

Are we reading the same bill? There does not seem to be a provision to require the government to first advise a suspected carrier to self-quarantine at a location of their choosing and only detain them if/after that requirement is violated.

If that provision exists, could you point it out to me, as I've obviously missed it?

In theory, sure. In practice, the standard is "the police want to detain or arrest you".

Some people are incredibly stupid and willing to hurt those around them if that allows them to exercise their whims. The rest of society needs to be protected from them, and that is a key function of government.

Someone close to me had a coworker who doesn’t believe in the COVID-19 virus and feels that his employer’s guidelines were designed to embarrass the president. He came to work with symptoms, and infected dozens of people, a few of which are hospitalized.

It’s branch of stupid human behavior that’s always with us. Google the history of “Typhoid Mary”.

So then its a question between: A) Tolerate stupid people B) Institute deeply fascist laws that can be taken advantage of and put the entire society in perill.

To me, its pretty clear which is the way to go. I'd rather have the society shame people than put them in undisclosed location for being stupid. Karen's movement is great!

Society has a lot of tolerance for stupid people. In normal times their stupidity isn’t spreading an infectious disease that’s killing thousands of people every day in the US alone (3,764 people died in the US from Covid yesterday)

A good analogy might be the penalties for driving while intoxicated, which is even more likely to kill or seriously injure somebody than going to a public place while infected with SARS-CoV-2.

We as a society have tremendous tolerance for these people (at least in the US), who are less "stupid" and more some combination of "dangerously selfish" and "mentally ill". Many such people still have driver's licenses, and you only really get punished for a DWI when you actually do kill or injure somebody.

So if that is the standard society has, we should apply it to COVID-19 to be consistent. If someone dies of a Covid case that is traceable to your own negligence (e.g. going to work with symptoms and no mask), you should be held liable for manslaughter.

Then there needs to be specificity of the amount of harm thats allowable. The law is a blankslate to make you squirm after 30 years "We told you so in 2021, when the pandemic hit and we moved on". You know the exactly the erosion that happened after 9/11 - patriot act, big brother, surveillance state. Those are all norms now.

It's not some high moral ground of freedom thumping people. This is what our grandfathers fought for.

No, it’s C) protect the general welfare of society.

As demonstrated, folks don’t get that, so we empower the state to compel behavior.

There’s a lot of high minded morality around “freedom” with these matters. The reality is the laws around public health are much less draconian than they once were and predate fascism and its ilk. If you showed up in Philadelphia during the constitutional convention with sailors aboard your ship with smallpox, you’d be quarantined and left to die, and the ship set ablaze.

Which was the least severe thing to do at the time. Given alternative measures of a less extreme measure, and you'd find that we don't set people'd boats on fire that often anymore. There is no need for reversions to barbarism. Authoritarianism always looks attractive in the presence of invasive parasites. This is exactly the type of thinking to be looked out for and rooted out in any Free or Liberty centric society. Eternal vigilance indeed.

So, you didn't look up the history of Typhoid Mary [0]. "Typhoid" Mary Mallon was so called because she could spread typhoid fever despite not suffering its symptoms. She also refused to stop finding employment as a cook, a choice which killed at least three people and probably dozens more. People did not just tolerate her: they died for her right to do as she wished, including her right to work.

While there are indeed obvious ethical issues about the incarceration of people like Mallon, and we should have a much better legal framework which isn't as intrusive to their rights, the fact is that an inability to enforce social distancing for just this one person caused tallyable fatalities.

Like, you don't think that the ice-cream licker should have been tolerated despite obvious stupidity, right?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Frankly after how the current governor has acted with regards to the COVID19 event he is the last person that should have any power to isolate someone.

Health officials yes, governors or his political appointees no. This is an administration which forced nursing homes to take in sick people which resulted in hundreds if not thousands of deaths.[0]

This is a governor deciding how people can assemble with bias and not science based decision only giving in when a court slaps him down. While 6700 Bill's fans can assemble in a stadium the same does not hold true for other methods of assembly by his rule. He was recently struck down with his numbers game for churches and synagogues as similar restrictions were not in place on business types or other assemblies he favored[1 - PDF warning]

No, this law looks tailored made so he has further means in his arsenal to stand up in court. Fortunately the courts have been slapping his restrictions around with quick actions and he has not seen fit to try at the Supreme Court.

Yes, some restrictions are necessary. However there is little consistency between the types of groups it is applied to or by what measure. This new method really looks like it could easily be turned to opponents of his actions or any governor who follows.

I have zero issue with medical professionals operating under law can have a means to isolate dangerously infectious people. I have a serious problem when political offices and their appointees are granted the same authority under the guise there is any protection from the review process, a process they control

[0]https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing... [1]https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-20...

> It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape."

Look up what an involuntary psychiatric hold is. In NYS, for example, i very strongly advise you not to say phrases like "i want to hurt myself" in front of an on duty EMT; the next 48 to 96 hours of your life have a fair chance of being, uh, weirder than you'd anticipated.

>Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing ... forced vaccination/medication.

That's been a matter of settled law for 115 years. The state police power to ensure the public welfare does, in some situations, permit this.

To put some context on this, the underlying social problem is the overcriminalization of behavior and the alarming growth [1] in incarceration rates here in the U.S.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...

This would give unelected officials the power to detain people "suspected" of having a disease. I would much rather live in a world where the government does not have that power.

All the government has to do is declare a medical emergency (which they can do arbitrarily) and they can entirely subvert the justice system. This is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists have been laughed at for fearing, and now people like you openly support these authoritarian policies.

Here's my interpretation of the bill after reading it over a couple times. IANAL.

- NY state will have the ability to order the detainment of individuals (EDIT: or groups / classes of individuals) if it's decided they pose an "imminent + significant threat to public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality".

- Individuals are detained in a medical facility or a facility/premises designed by the governor

- If ordered to be detained for more than 3 business days, and the detainee requests to be released, the state will submit an expedited court order to continue detainment. The court order must be granted within 5 business days after the detainee's request, otherwise they are released. If detained less than 3 business days, they are "afforded an opportunity to be heard" (not sure what that actually means)

- Individuals with a confirmed case can no longer be detained if they are not contagious. If there's no confirmed case, they can't be detained if they will not become contagious in the future or if the state determines they will not pose a risk to public health

- Expanded power of the state to create and enforce new orders, such as (but not limited to) requiring testing / medical evaluation of individuals who are thought to be exposed / infected. Also allows them to force preventative measures such as a vaccine, but with the caveat there must be a court order if administration must be done forcibly.

- The above powers only apply during a declared "State of Health Emergency" due to an epidemic

One correction - the bill doesn’t just apply to individuals. It explicitly noted that it can apply to groups that can be described with a “reasonably specific” description. In other words, it can apply to classes of individuals.

> or a facility/premises designed by the governor

Interpreting this in the worst light -- this could be a jail or prison if the governor has designated such to be where people charged with violating this law are to be confined. But it does go on to mention home confinement - not sure what the standard is.

What I'm not seeing is mention of compensation to people wrongly forcibly quarantined under this law. Or any reference to how they will be treated while quarantined (Will you be fed a Maricopa county jail peanut-butter sandwich, a military ration, or take-out from local restaurants?)

From a language perspective - I really dislike the word "Removal" used in the bill. Perhaps it's standard for NY laws, but it's too Orwellian in my opinion. And quarantine isn't mentioned until the last page. Really, it's just sloppily written, perhaps intentionally so - so that the legislator can prove to his constituents that he's doing something while on their dime.

This has been standard all the way back to Typhoid Mary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

COVID-19 is not Typhoid fever and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any legislation around that case.

I'm a little confused by your comment.

The link above is to legislation that hasn't passed yet. It cross links to similar legislation from previous sessions. The first section amends existing (passed) legislation. So there seems to be plenty of legislation.

Also, I don't think anyone said Covid is Typhoid. You are correct that it isn't. But they're both contagious and potentially deadly. We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking?

> We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking?

Correct. I mentioned in another reply that my concern is about the precedent being set.

I think the limits in the legislation are quite tight. Tighter than existing powers around mental health detentions. So I don't think there is really much room for abuse created with these powers.

I agree it's a not ideal to legislate like this during an emergency. But as the legislative haven't done their homework there don't seem to be many other options.

The law itself doesn't mention COVID-19 so it is general purpose at least.

There's some real potential for abuse so I'd probably have to oppose this one, but I think when you're dealing with people willfully spreading a deadly disease, that's probably already actionable under current laws in most if not all states.

On face value, deliberately endangering others for no reason is a pretty clear sign that someone might qualify for court-ordered psychiatric evaluation and temporary institutionalization, especially since it's already a criminal offense to expose someone to infectious conditions like HIV without their knowledge.

How does this law compare to the law that allows individuals to be committed to a psychiatric facility upon determination that they pose a danger to themselves or others?

Blue states/leaders have revealed themselves in the past 12 months as true authoritarians.

Both major parties are authoritarian in nature. On some issues, they agree. On the issues they disagree on, they're still authoritarian (e.g., abortion restrictions favored by Republicans, gun restrictions favored by Democrats).

If you think this is bad, you're going to be so upset when you hear about:

* the Patriot Act

* the War-on-Drugs

* Mass incarceration

* lack of abortion rights

* lack of LGBT rights

* police shooting of minorities

* The electoral collage system

* President Trumps refusal to conceded

* a LOT of American history.

This bill is so vague and overreaching that it can be used to do just about anything. The wording below enables the state government to detain (or confine in some other way) anyone who refuses to get vaccinated for example, since they could be considered as a group that is “suspected” (whatever that means) to be carrying a disease:

> ... MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDENTIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR ...

Section 12 of the bill gets more explicit and notes that apart from detention, you may be ordered to undergo medical procedures like vaccination:

> ... THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MAY, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, ISSUE AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ORDERS THAT HE OR SHE DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT DISSEMINATION OR TRANSMISSION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR OTHER ILLNESSES THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH INCLUDING ... TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE TO COMPLETE AN APPROPRIATE, PRESCRIBED COURSE OF TREATMENT, PREVENTIVE MEDICATION OR VACCINATION ...

Bodily autonomy matters. It is a fundamental right and must be upheld across the board. Safety is the responsibility of the individual. If you’re someone who is scared of viruses and disease, the correct path is for YOU to quarantine yourself indefinitely. It is not appropriate to require others to make changes to their body to suit your risk aversion.

It seems to me that we have reached that point in our lives where we have to actually use firearms to protect ourselves not only from criminals but from our own government

This is exactly what I want my government doing.

The legitimate purpose of government, even in the minarchist view, is to protect citizens from threats to life, liberty, and property. If a thousand Redcoats showed up in New York and wanted to attack me or my home, the state should do all in its power to stop them. If the soldiers were being pressed into service and have no personal desire to attack, but they still attack, it makes no difference.

It's no different if someone has a communicable disease and has no personal desire to communicate it.

If it were limited to “clear and convincing cases” of being an attacker, I agree with limited reluctance.

This bill includes “or suspected” which is inherently different and problematic in my view.

If this does not include suspected cases then it becomes useless because in many cases they obviously probably don't have an actual test result for the person but only a suspicion based on, e.g., symptoms.

Of course the important aspect here is to carry out a test as quickly as possible in order not to detain a suspected case for longer than necessary.

I agree with you on both points. One might reasonably wonder why the second point is not reflected in the bill explicitly.

It’s not like we had to break our brains for more than 2 minutes in this.

The problem with that is the quality of the test being used. Combined with legislation like the above, it has the potential to give you a free pass to "mark" someone, whether or not that's medically accurate.

https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not...

Honest question: Are those terms of art we are misunderstanding?

It seems possible to me (not a lawyer) that "suspected" case means your cops needs reasonable suspension (cough, fever, loss of taste and smell etc). But "clear and convincing" would require more (positive test result?). So what happens if you strongly suspect someone has covid but they decline a test? You can't take action as your suspicion isn't enough.

I'd be happy with reasonable suspension (which would apply to anyone with a fever or a cough or other symptoms right now). Thoughts?

(If I'm "the Department",) Suppose I have reasonable suspicion that you have COVID. Under the bill, I can lock you up for 3 business days without any recourse, so long as I have not determined that you have not been infected or exposed (which is entirely under my control) and for a longer period of time during which you can petition for release.

I would be happy with articulable probable cause as the threshold for involuntary confinement, same as for other types of involuntary confinement.

Not just clear and convincing cases, the threat must also be sufficiently dangerous. In regards of covid, the virus is far from dangerous. e.g someone with positive test case is not sufficiently harmfull.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com