Is the Son of Sam Law Still in Effect?

The Son of Sam law is still in effect, both at the federal level and in 27 states, though almost none of these statutes resemble the 1977 New York original that gave the law its name.¹ The Supreme Court struck down New York’s first version in 1991, and the laws now on the books were rebuilt to survive that ruling. They target the money a convicted person receives rather than the story a convicted person tells.

Where the Law Came From

David Berkowitz terrorized New York City in 1976 and 1977 as the shooter known as “Son of Sam.” After his arrest, publishers offered to pay him for his story. New York lawmakers responded in 1977 with a statute requiring any money owed to a person accused or convicted of a crime under a book or media contract to be turned over to a state Crime Victims Board, which would hold the funds in escrow for victims to claim through civil lawsuits.

More than 40 states and the federal government passed their own versions in the years that followed.² Most of those early statutes did not survive their first serious constitutional challenge.

Why the Original Was Struck Down

In Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, the publisher had contracted with an author working with admitted organized crime figure Henry Hill to produce the book Wiseguy. The Crime Victims Board ordered Simon & Schuster to turn over all payments owed to Hill under the state’s Son of Sam law.³

On December 10, 1991, the Court struck the law down 8-0 (Justice Thomas did not participate). Justice O’Connor’s opinion applied strict scrutiny because the statute singled out speech based on content. The state’s interest in compensating victims and preventing criminals from profiting was compelling, the Court said, but the law was not narrowly tailored. It swept in any work that mentioned a crime even in passing, and it reached people merely accused rather than convicted.³

The decision did not forbid states from pursuing criminal profits. It required a different method: target the proceeds, not the speech.

What the Current State Laws Cover

States that kept their statutes had to redesign them. Many of the original 40-plus laws were struck down in state court or quietly repealed. The 27 states that still have Son of Sam laws typically define covered funds broadly, so the law captures a convicted person’s financial windfall from any source rather than earnings tied to a particular book or film.¹

New York rewrote its statute in 2001. The current version reaches “all funds and property received from any source” by a person convicted of a qualifying crime, with only child support and earned income carved out. Any person or entity that agrees to pay a convicted person more than $10,000 must notify the state’s Crime Victims Board in writing.⁴ The board can then move to freeze the money while victims pursue civil claims.

Because the trigger is the size of the payment rather than its subject matter, these laws now reach well past media deals. A large inheritance, a lawsuit settlement, or any other substantial payment to a convicted person can start the notification and escrow process. That shift is what keeps the modern laws constitutional, and it is also what gives them real teeth.

The Federal Statute

The federal government operates its own version under 18 U.S.C. § 3681, which authorizes “special forfeiture of collateral profits of crime.” A federal prosecutor can move at any time after conviction to force a defendant to give up proceeds from any contract depicting the crime in a book, movie, television production, or other medium, including any expression of the defendant’s thoughts or opinions about the crime.⁵ There is no filing deadline, so prosecutors can act whenever a profitable deal surfaces.

The federal law is narrower than many state versions in one respect: it applies only to offenses that cause physical harm to an individual, plus espionage offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 794.⁵ A federal fraud conviction with no physical injury falls outside this statute. White-collar defendants in federal court may not be reachable through § 3681 even where state law would cover them.

Once a forfeiture order is entered, the U.S. attorney must publish notice within 30 days in a newspaper of general circulation in the district where the crime occurred, naming the defendant and informing victims that the forfeited proceeds may be available to satisfy civil judgments.⁶

How Victims Actually Get the Money

The money does not go to victims automatically. The sequence under most state laws runs like this. A person or entity pays a convicted person an amount above the statutory threshold ($10,000 in New York) and reports it to the state’s crime victims board.⁴ The board or a court freezes the funds. Victims are identified and notified. To collect, a victim has to file a civil suit against the offender and obtain a judgment, which is then satisfied out of the escrowed money.

Holding periods and claim deadlines vary. Under the original New York statute, funds were held in escrow for five years so victims could obtain a civil judgment.³ Other states set their own windows. If no victim files a claim in time, the money may be redirected to a general victim assistance fund rather than returned to the offender. Every state operates such a fund.¹ This process runs separately from any criminal restitution order, though the two can work in tandem.

Non-compliance carries real consequences. In at least one state, willfully failing to notify the crime victims board is a gross misdemeanor, and taking any other action to defeat the statute is a misdemeanor.

Which Crimes Are Covered

Coverage varies sharply by jurisdiction. The federal statute reaches only crimes involving physical harm, plus espionage. Some states limit their laws to violent felonies. Others cast a wider net. New York’s revised law covers felonies and certain other specified offenses, which is a common modern approach. California has applied its law to white-collar and violent offenders alike, though the state attorney general must show it is more likely than not that identifiable victims exist before a court will impose a trust on the profits.

The practical consequence is that a fraud victim may be able to use a Son of Sam law in one state and not in another, and never under the federal statute.

Where the Laws Have Gaps

Most of these statutes were drafted with book publishers and film studios in mind. Podcasts, YouTube channels, TikTok accounts, streaming documentaries, and ongoing ad royalties were not. In Idaho, a judge confirmed that the state’s existing Son of Sam law might not stop a convicted defendant from profiting through modern media deals, which prompted state legislators to propose new language covering digital monetization, streaming platforms, podcasts, and royalties.

The underlying rule has held since 1991: a convicted person’s financial proceeds can be redirected to victims, but the mechanism must target money rather than speech. Where state legislatures have updated their statutes to reflect that distinction, the laws work. Where they have not, a convicted person who builds a following on social media or earns revenue from a podcast may slip through the cracks until the legislature catches up.

1
National Conference of State Legislatures. Map Monday: Where True Crime Stories Don’t Pay
2
Office of Justice Programs. Victims’ Rights and the Son of Sam Law: Implications for Free Speech and Research on Offenders
3
Cornell Law Institute. Simon and Schuster Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105
4
New York State Senate. New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law – EXC 632-a
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3681 – Order of Special Forfeiture
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 3682 – Notice to Victims of Order of Special Forfeiture