Police immunity bill approved in committee, moves to Alabama Senate floor
An Alabama Senate committee approved legislation that enhances immunity protection for law enforcement when they are faced with either criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits.
HB 202, sponsored by Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, changes the standard by which law enforcement can claim immunity as they perform their jobs and gives them additional procedural protections during litigation.
'I know a couple of the members have worked closely with our team on a couple of amendments,' Reynolds told the Senate Judiciary Committee during a meeting on Wednesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The committee approved the bill 9-4 along party lines after approving amendments that would review the impact on the legislation and report the race of individuals and the circumstances surrounding the incidents.
Reynolds' bill has faced opposition from Democrats and civil rights groups, who said the legislation would make it difficult to hold law enforcement accountable for alleged wrongdoing.
Supporters including the Alabama Sheriff's Association said it reflects the decisions made in the courts on immunity.
The bill changes the standard for immunity from prosecution. Currently, law enforcement officers may have prosecution or lawsuits if they act 'willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.' Under Reynolds' bill, the officer would have to violate rights specifically laid out in the constitutions of Alabama or the United States.
The legislation allows law enforcement a hearing at the start of any civil or criminal case to determine whether the law enforcement officer was acting within his or her discretionary authority. If the court rules the behavior acted within that discretionary authority, the case is dismissed.
If the appeal is rejected, the law enforcement officer may appeal the verdict to the Alabama Supreme Court. Lawmakers approved an amendment that sets a time limit for submitting appeals. If the appeal is rejected, the officer may continue to assert that defense as the case proceeds in court.
The legislation also prevents a plaintiff from gathering evidence in discovery in civil cases when the law enforcement officer requests the court dismiss the case.
Members of the committee approved a few amendments that modified the legislation on the periphery. One was proposed by Sen. Sam Givhan, R-Huntsville, that allowed plaintiffs to obtain video footage of the incident that pertains to civil lawsuits, but not criminal cases.
Another amendment proposed by Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, creates a study commission to evaluate the impact the legislation had on law enforcement recruitment and retention, one of the main justifications that Reynolds proposed the legislation.
A third amendment, also by Singleton, requires law enforcement agencies to collect and submit data to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency regarding the type of excessive force committed by law enforcement officers and the race and ethnicity of both the officer and the victim.
One proposal offered by Singleton was rejected that would have required law enforcement agencies to adopt written policies that officers would follow while performing their duties before they are given immunity.
'The impetus of this is to make sure there is a written policy that these officers have to go by, we are not just going out there going against the Constitution, so that there is a policy where they can be trained on,' Singleton said. 'We will know there is a written policy to go by.'
Reynolds said he agreed with the proposal in principle but said he was against the amendment.
'I would not want to impose this on sheriffs in the state because they are not even APOSTC (Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission) certified,' Reynolds said. 'There may be some throughout those ranks, but it impacts a lot of things.'
Other Democrats also agreed with Singleton's amendment.
'To me, there is nothing like transparency, and everybody knows the rules and regulations so they can all be on the same page and be all treated the same,' Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile.
Republicans on the committee opposed the amendment.
'While I think, especially in my department, we have very sophisticated police departments and sheriff's offices, this is a model, written policy that may or may not exist currently from APOSTC and specifies what should be in the policy,' said Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Fairhope. 'That may or may not differ from the policies that are in effect in our local police departments or sheriffs.'
The bill moves to the Senate. There are four days left in the 2025 legislative session.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Newsom's Map Gambit Is a Short-Term Play
Gavin Newsom is doing what he does best: seeking attention. The California governor is succeeding even as his policies fail. He proposes to redraw the state's congressional map to parry a similar move by Texas Republicans. It's a gambit to elevate himself as his party's standard-bearer. It's also a blue herring. Denounce Donald Trump and Texas Republicans for undermining democracy, and maybe Americans will overlook how Democrats have entrenched one-party rule in California to such ill effect.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
MSNBC dismisses fears about DC safety, says 'it ain't Mayberry,' amid Trump crackdown
MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart mocked concerns about crime in Washington, D.C., while discussing President Donald Trump's decision to send federal troops to the capital, on his Sunday morning show, "The Weekend." Trump deployed 800 National Guard troops to D.C. this past week to support other federal law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets and attempting to quell violence in the city. The White House said Saturday that the operation had already resulted in more than 240 arrests, 25 homeless encampments cleared and 38 guns taken off the streets. Top Democrats across the country have pushed back on the crime crackdown, citing statistics purportedly showing violent crime is at a 30-year-low. While discussing the federal takeover, Capehart expressed how frustrated he was to hear people describing D.C. as unsafe. "You know what concerns me about this?" he asked co-host Eugene Daniels and The Independent columnist Ahmed Baba. "In the last few days, since the president has said 'I'm going to send troops in, I'm sending troops in,' I've been overhearing in restaurants, people just sort of talk about this. And the way they talk about it sends a shiver down my spine." "'Oh, Washington. I mean the crime is just so— I mean I don't feel comfortable at all,'" Capehart said, mimicking conversations he overheard. "And I don't say anything," he continued. "I don't leap across the table and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, ma'am. I live in that city.' But to me, it just sounds like if the president were to go that extra step and invoke the Insurrection Act, that there are going to be quite a few people who are going to be down with it. They'll be fine with it." "Because they believe his lies about crime in D.C.," Daniels agreed, before acknowledging that "things" do "happen" in the city. "Right. It ain't Mayberry!" Capehart agreed, likely referring to the fictional, idyllic town in "The Andy Griffith Show." "Correct," Daniels continued. "At the end of the day, things do happen, but it is not at the levels Donald Trump is talking about, and most importantly, there's a billion dollars that Congress is still holding that D.C. wants and that is supposed to be given to them. They have not gotten it and the mayor of D.C. has been very clear about what she wants that billion dollars for and some of that is safety in the city." Several Republican governors also announced Saturday that they were sending National Guard troops to assist Trump's operation, NBC reported. During a press conference Monday, Trump warned that other major U.S. cities with reputations for crime could be next. "You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is," Trump said. "We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore — they're so far gone. … We're not going to lose our cities over this, and this will go further." Other journalists have ridiculed the Trump administration's efforts to clean up crime in the nation's capital. CNN host Abby Phillip mockingly compared Trump to Batman while criticizing the federal takeover of D.C.'s police force during a segment on her Monday night show. "Donald Trump makes himself Batman and the nation's capital is Gotham City," she said, adding, "The President of the United States has declared himself crime-fighter-in-chief, and he's taking over Washington's police force." But MSNBC host Joe Scarborough claimed on Wednesday that some D.C. journalists are secretly cheering Trump's efforts. "So many people have been calling me over the past couple days, going, 'You know, like, Washington should have gotten involved years ago. This place is dangerous, it's a mess, it's a wreck and whatever,' and then they'll go on Twitter and go, 'This is the worst outrage out of all time,'" Scarborough said on "Morning Joe."
