Yes. The Son of Sam law is still in effect, both in New York and in some form across every state and at the federal level. The version operating today is not the 1977 original — that statute was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1991 — but a rewritten framework that redirects a convicted person’s crime-related profits to victims without singling out books, films, or other speech.
Why the Original Law Was Struck Down
New York passed the first Son of Sam law in 1977, named for serial killer David Berkowitz, who reportedly sold his exclusive story rights. Executive Law Section 632-a required any company contracting with a convicted or accused criminal for a work about the crime to turn the payments over to the state’s Crime Victims Board, where they would be held for victims to claim through civil lawsuits.
The statute applied only when a criminal entered a deal to describe, reenact, or recount the crime. That narrow focus on expressive activity became its undoing. In December 1991, in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, the Supreme Court held that New York had “singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income.” Because the law reached money earned from telling the story of a crime while leaving other income untouched, it was a content-based restriction on speech and failed First Amendment scrutiny.
The ruling did not say states could never pursue a criminal’s profits. It said they could not do so by targeting speech specifically. Every modern version of the law is built around that distinction.
How Son of Sam Laws Work Today
After the 1991 decision, legislatures rewrote their statutes to cover all significant financial assets a convicted person might receive, not just media contracts. New York revised Section 632-a in 1992 to reach “profits from a crime” broadly: any property obtained through the crime, income generated from it, or money gained because of the criminal’s notoriety.
Under this framework, the law can reach inheritances, lawsuit settlements, gifts, and other financial windfalls received while a person is incarcerated. Any party contracting with a convicted individual for payments connected to the crime must notify the state as soon as practicable after learning the payment qualifies as a profit from crime. That reporting obligation falls on the paying party, which keeps the state from learning about the money only after it has been spent or moved.
The constitutional advantage is that the law now treats all crime-related profits the same, whether they come from a movie contract or a windfall inheritance enhanced by notoriety. Most states operate some version of this updated framework.
The Escrow and Victim Claim Process
Modern Son of Sam laws do not let the government simply seize a criminal’s money. They work through a notification-and-escrow system that gives victims a window to pursue civil claims.
When a paying party reports a crime-related profit, the state notifies identified victims from the criminal case that money is available and that they have the right to sue the convicted person for damages. The reported funds are then placed in an escrow account managed by the state or a court-appointed custodian. The money sits there while victims decide whether to file suit. At the federal level, the escrow period is five years;1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture state periods vary but tend to fall in a similar range.
If a victim files suit and wins, the court can order the escrowed funds released to satisfy that judgment. If no victim files within the allowed period, the money may be returned to the convicted person or deposited into a crime victims’ compensation fund, depending on the jurisdiction. Because the state is acting as a temporary custodian rather than permanently confiscating money tied to speech, the structure avoids the constitutional problem the Supreme Court identified in 1991.
The Federal Version
At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 3681 authorizes courts to order “special forfeiture of collateral profits of crime.” It applies when a defendant is convicted of espionage under Section 794 or any federal offense that causes physical harm to another person. After conviction, the U.S. Attorney may move the court to forfeit all or part of the defendant’s proceeds from contracts related to depictions of the crime, including movies, books, magazines, radio, television, live entertainment, or any expression of the defendant’s thoughts and opinions about the crime.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture
Forfeited proceeds go to the Attorney General, who holds them in escrow within the Crime Victims Fund for five years. During that period the funds can be used to satisfy restitution orders or pay victims directly. At the end of five years, the court directs the final disposition, releasing the money to victims or depositing it permanently into the Crime Victims Fund.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture
When the Law Reaches Family Members and Third Parties
A common question is whether the law can reach money that flows to someone other than the convicted criminal. The federal statute addresses this in part by covering proceeds received by “a transferee of that defendant,” meaning a person the criminal channels money through to avoid forfeiture.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture This is meant to stop criminals from signing contracts in someone else’s name.
State laws vary more widely. Some define “representative” broadly to include agents, family members, or business partners who receive payments connected to the crime. Others use narrower definitions, which can leave gaps. If a criminal’s estranged spouse independently licenses personal footage to a streaming service for a documentary, some state laws may not reach that income because the spouse acted on their own rather than as the criminal’s agent. Legislators in several states have been working to close these gaps by amending their statutes to cover family members who profit from a relative’s notoriety even without a direct arrangement with the convicted person.
What the Law Does Not Restrict
Son of Sam laws do not prohibit writing about, filming, or discussing crimes. The constitutional line drawn by the Supreme Court protects the act of speaking and publishing. What the law targets is the financial profit a convicted criminal personally receives.
A journalist writing an investigative book about a serial killer keeps the earnings. A filmmaker producing a documentary about a notorious case keeps the profits. The law comes into play only when the convicted criminal personally receives payment, or when someone acting on the criminal’s behalf collects money tied to the notoriety of the crime. Modern statutes focus on the criminal’s financial gain rather than the content of any particular work, which is what keeps them on the right side of the First Amendment while still steering money toward victims.