A09500Introduced in the Assembly
Provides that a person shall not be deemed to have entered the lands owned or occupied by a nation, tribe, or band of Indians if such person is temporarily and continuously passing through such lands; provides that at the request of the Seneca nation, the superintendent of state police, a sheriff of a county that includes lands of the Seneca nation, or the chief of police of the city of Salamanca may enter into an agreement with the Seneca nation detailing the activities such law enforcement entity will undertake within the nation's federally-recognized Indian Country lands; provides that such agreements shall not be construed to limit powers, duties, and responsibilities to undertake activities on Indian lands; and provides that such agreements may include provisions related to the appointment of tribal members of Nation employees as police officers.
Introduced by Crystal Peoples-Stokes, District 141
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Provides that a person shall not be deemed to have entered the lands owned or occupied by a nation, tribe, or band of Indians if such person is temporarily and continuously passing through such lands; provides that at the request of the Seneca nation, the superintendent of state police, a sheriff of a county that includes lands of the Seneca nation, or the chief of police of the city of Salamanca may enter into an agreement with the Seneca nation detailing the activities such law enforcement entity will undertake within the nation's federally-recognized Indian Country lands; provides that such agreements shall not be construed to limit powers, duties, and responsibilities to undertake activities on Indian lands; and provides that such agreements may include provisions related to the appointment of tribal members of Nation employees as police officers.
Where it stands
substituted by s8834
February 11, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
AssemblyStage: Assembly Rules Committee: Favorable · February 10, 2026
28
Yes
0
No
3
Absent or Not Voting
31 assemblymembers recorded in this Assembly vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each assemblymember voted
| Assemblymember | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Doug Smith | 5 | Yes |
| Charles Lavine | 13 | Yes |
| Edward Ra | 19 | Yes |
| Nily Rozic | 25 | Yes |
| Edward Braunstein | 26 | Yes |
| Andrew Hevesi | 28 | Yes |
| Alicia Hyndman | 29 | Yes |
| Vivian Cook | 32 | Absent |
| Clyde Vanel | 33 | Yes |
| Catalina Cruz | 39 | Yes |
Bill history
referred to judiciary
reported referred to rules
reported
rules report cal.79
ordered to third reading rules cal.79
substituted by s8834
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.