Police immunity bill approved in committee, moves to Alabama Senate floor
Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 11, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
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
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the US, charged with transporting people in the country illegally
WASHINGTON (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a political flashpoint in the Trump administration's stepped-up immigration enforcement, was returned to the United States on Friday to face criminal charges related to what the Trump administration said was a large human smuggling operation that brought immigrants into the country illegally. His abrupt release from El Salvador closes one chapter and opens another in a saga that yielded a remarkable, months-long standoff between Trump officials and the courts over a deportation that officials initially acknowledged was done in error but then continued to stand behind in apparent defiance of orders by judges to facilitate his return to the U.S. The development occurred after U.S. officials presented El Salvador President Nayib Bukele with an arrest warrant for federal charges in Tennessee accusing Abrego Garcia of playing a key role in smuggling immigrants into the country for money. He is expected to be prosecuted in the U.S. and, if convicted, will be returned to his home country of El Salvador at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday. 'This is what American justice looks like,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in announcing Abrego Garcia's return and the unsealing of a grand jury indictment. Abrego Garcia's attorneys called the case 'baseless." 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee, determined that Abrego Garcia will be held in custody until at least next Friday, when there will be an arraignment and detention hearing. Abrego Garcia appeared in court wearing a short-sleeved, white, button-down shirt. When asked if he understood the charges, he told the judge: 'Sí. Lo entiendo.' An interpreter then said: 'Yes. I understand.' Democrats and immigrant rights group had pressed for Abrego Garcia's release, with several lawmakers — including Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia had lived for years — even traveling to El Salvador to visit him. A federal judge had ordered him to be returned in April and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by directing the government to work to bring him back. But the news that Abrego Garcia, who had an immigration court order preventing his deportation to his native country over fears he would face persecution from local gangs, was being brought back for the purpose of prosecution was greeted with dismay by his lawyers. Abrego Garcia's lawyer calls charges 'preposterous' 'This administration ... instead of simply admitting their mistake, they'll stop at nothing at all, including some of the most preposterous charges imageable," Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Ama Frimpong, legal director with the group CASA, said Abrego Garcia's family has mixed emotions about his return to the U.S. 'Let him talk to his wife. Let him talk to his children. This family has suffered enough,' she said. Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia is one of the first, if not the first, person released from a notorious prison in El Salvador, though he was later imprisoned at another facility. 'So it's going to be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the way in which he was treated,' the attorney said. The indictment, filed last month and unsealed Friday, lays out a string of allegations that date back to 2016 but are only being disclosed now, nearly three months after Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported and following the Trump administration's repeated claims that he is a criminal. It accuses him of smuggling throughout the U.S. thousands of people living in the country illegally, including members of the violent MS-13 gang, from Central America and abusing women he was transporting. A co-conspirator also alleged that he participated in the killing of a gang member's mother in El Salvador, prosecutors wrote in papers urging the judge to keep him behind bars while he awaits trial. The indictment does not charge him in connection with that allegation. 'Later, as part of his immigration proceedings in the United States, the defendant claimed he could not return to El Salvador because he was in fear of retribution from the 18th Street gang,' the detention memo states. 'While partially true — the defendant, according to the information received by the Government, was in fear of retaliation by the 18th Street gang — the underlying reason for the retaliation was the defendant's own actions in participating in the murder of a rival 18th Street gang member's mother," prosecutors wrote. The charges stem from a 2022 vehicle stop in which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. A report released by the Department of Homeland Security in April states that none of the people in the vehicle had luggage, while they listed the same address as Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, while the officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning about an expired driver's license, according to the DHS report. The report said he was traveling from Texas to Maryland, via Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work. In response to the report's release in April, Abrego Garcia's wife said in a statement that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, 'so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.' Immigrant rights advocates vs. the Trump administration Abrego Garcia's background and personal life have been a source of dispute and contested facts. Immigrant rights advocates have cast his arrest as emblematic of an administration whose deportation policy is haphazard and error-prone, while Trump officials have pointed to prior interactions with police and described him as a gang member who fits the mold they are determined to expel from the country. Abrego Garcia lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records. Trump administration officials said he was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said. A U.S. immigration judge subsequently shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs. The Trump administration deported him there in March, later describing the mistake as 'an administrative error' but insisting he was in MS-13. Even if Abrego Garcia is convicted of the charges announced Friday, the Trump administration would still have to return to a U.S. immigration court if it wanted to deport him to El Salvador, Sandoval-Moshenberg said. He also expects the case in Maryland to continue as the federal judge there considers whether the administration obeyed her orders to return him. Abrego Garcia's return comes days after the Trump administration complied with a court order to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. The man, identified in court papers as O.C.G, was the first person known to have been returned to U.S. custody after deportation since the start of President Donald Trump's second term. ___ Associated Press reporter Travis Loller in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report. Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Lindsay Whitehurst And Ben Finley, The Associated Press
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
13 House Republicans urge Senate to scale back clean energy cuts in bill they voted for
WASHINGTON — Thirteen House Republicans who voted for President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' sent a letter Friday urging Senate GOP leaders to scale back some of its clean energy cuts, sparking pushback from conservative hard-liners. The unusual criticism of their own bill indicates a modicum of regret by the GOP lawmakers, whose votes were critical to the bill passing the House by a narrow margin last month. 'While we were proud to have worked to ensure that the bill did not include a full repeal of the clean energy tax credits, we remain deeply concerned by several provisions,' said the Republicans in the letter, led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va. They cited provisions that 'abruptly terminate several credits just 60 days after enactment for projects that have not yet begun construction,' and 'restrictions to transferability.' 'This approach jeopardizes ongoing development, discourages long-term investment, and could significantly delay or cancel energy infrastructure projects across the country,' the group of House Republicans said in criticizing the legislation they voted for, while suggesting some changes to 'mitigate' the harm it could cause. Kiggans, like most of the signatories, represents a competitive district that Democrats are targeting in the 2026 election. Other politically vulnerable members include: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Gabe Evans, R-Colo.; Young Kim, R-Calif.; David Valadao, R-Calif.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; and Tom Kean, R-N.J. The remaining three, who hold comparably safer seats, are Reps. Mark Amodei, R-Nev.; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; and Nick LaLota, R-N.Y. The 13 Republicans warned that 'the House-passed bill includes a phase out schedule for credits that would cause significant disruption to projects under development and stop investments needed to win the global energy race.' The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mocked the letter and said the lawmakers will own their votes for the bill. 'These 13 Republicans promised not to support cuts to clean energy tax credits, then cast the deciding votes to raise energy costs on American families, kill tens of thousands of jobs, and undermine our nation's energy security. They are responsible for this Big, Ugly Bill and all the harm it will cause,' DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said. 'This toothless letter is the worst kind of political hypocrisy and voters will see it for what it is, a lie perpetrated by endangered House Republicans who caved to their D.C. party bosses at the expense of the American people.' Kiggans' office did not immediately return a request for comment on whether she was aware of the provisions when supporting the bill, or if she'd vote for one that falls short of her new demands. Senate Republicans are eyeing changes to the House bill to ease some of the negative impacts of the funding cuts. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told NBC News her version of the bill will probably relax some of the deadlines to cut off funding. But she said Thursday that there probably won't be massive changes to the House-passed bill. 'I imagine it's going to track fairly similarly, but I think some of the deadlines are pretty tight in terms of when you have to have construction and those things,' Capito said. 'We've been approached by several employers who need some of those tax credits.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he's willing to undo some of the clean energy funding, but he wants to make sure that existing business investments aren't harmed by the bill. 'What we're trying to focus on is to make sure that if businesses have invested and have projects in progress, that we do everything we can to hold them harmless,' he said. 'Whether or not we continue some of these programs out into the future — that's a separate question that I'm willing to entertain.' Meanwhile, the conservative group Club For Growth is running ads targeting Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., John Curtis, R-Utah, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, for backing more modest rollbacks of the clean energy funding, which carries benefits for their states. There's another reason changing the bill is easier said than done: The speedy cuts to clean energy funding under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act were part of a House agreement to win the votes of conservative hard-liners who want to reduce the bill's red ink. House Republicans have a majority of 220 to 212, meaning they can only spare three 'no' votes in their ranks to pass the bill when the Senate sends back its revised version. 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said Friday on the House floor. 'So you do what you want to do in the Senate, House of Lords, have your fun. But if you mess up the Inflation Reduction Act, Green New Scam subsidies, I ain't voting for that bill.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Inside the Trump-Musk Breakup
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. For once, President Donald Trump was trying to be the adult in the room. Trump and Elon Musk, two billionaires with massive egos and combustible temperaments, had forged an unlikely friendship over the past year, one built on proximity, political expediency, and, yes, a touch of genuine warmth. Relations between the president and his top benefactor had grown somewhat strained in recent weeks, as Trump began to feel that Musk had overstayed his welcome in the West Wing. Musk had suggested privately that he could stay on at the White House, an offer that Trump gently declined, two people familiar with the situation told us. (They, like others we talked with for this story, spoke anonymously in order to share candid details about a sensitive feud.) But Musk was still given a gracious send-off last Friday—complete with a large golden, albeit ceremonial, key—aimed at keeping the mercurial tech baron more friend than foe. The peace didn't last even a week. On Tuesday, Musk took to X to attack the Republican spending bill being debated in the Senate, trashing Trump's signature piece of legislation as 'a disgusting abomination.' Even as the White House tried to downplay any differences, Musk couldn't let go of his grievances—the exclusion of electric-vehicle tax credits from the bill, and Trump's rejection of Musk's pick to run NASA. Yesterday, the planet's richest man attacked its most powerful. Each took aim at the other from their respective social-media platform, forcing rubberneckers into a madcap toggle between Truth Social and X. Trump deemed his former aide 'CRAZY,' while Musk went much further, dramatically escalating the feud by calling for Trump's impeachment, suggesting that the president had been part of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious sex-trafficking ring, and—likely worst of all in Trump's mind—taking credit for the president's election in November. [Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs] For one day, Musk made X great again. The spectacle seemed to subside today, as Trump showed—at least by his standards—some restraint. The president insisted that he was not thinking about Musk and wanted only to pass the reconciliation bill that had featured in the brawl. Musk, meanwhile, has far more to lose: his newfound stardom within the MAGA movement, his personal wealth, and government contracts worth billions to his businesses. Steven Bannon, the influential Trump adviser who has long been critical of Musk, crowed that the tech billionaire's attacks on Trump were so personal that he won't be forgiven by the MAGA crowd. 'Only the fanboys are going to stick with him—he's a man without a country,' Bannon told us. Trump and Musk were inseparable during the transition and in the first months after the inauguration. At times, Musk stayed over in the White House residence, regaling reporters with tales of late-night Häagen-Dazs ice-cream binges (caramel flavor) in the White House kitchen. He grew close to Trump's powerful adviser Stephen Miller and to Miller's wife, Katie, who'd entered the administration as a special government employee alongside Musk; the trio socialized outside of work. (Musk has since unfollowed Stephen Miller on X.) Musk's 5-year-old son, X, became a frequent visitor to the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago, at times scampering around the tables at Trump's private club. But friction mounted over time: a West Wing shouting match between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a heated Cabinet meeting about job cuts, clashes with senior White House staffers. Trump grew angry that Musk was bad-mouthing his tariff plan to CEOs, and was especially incensed when The New York Times reported in March that Musk was scheduled to receive a classified briefing at the Pentagon about China; the president began quietly telling confidants last month that he was getting tired of the Tesla chief. The cuts forced by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—symbolized by Musk wielding a gold-plated chain saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference—angered even some Republicans, who depended on the government services DOGE was slashing. Trump initially bought into Musk's claim that DOGE would find $2 trillion in cuts, two advisers told us. But the potential savings shrank as the chaos grew, and Trump became disillusioned 'Trump started off as more than enamored, then it faded when it turned out the trillion dollars in DOGE cuts was bullshit,' Bannon told us. 'Trump was like, Okay.' Musk's 130-day tenure as a special government employee expired late last month. Despite growing disenchanted with Washington, he suggested to the White House that he wanted to stay on, the two advisers told us. Trump declined. A representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment. 'Trump was like, You know, he's been around long enough, but he was not mad, not like, Screw this guy,' one of the advisers told us. 'It was like, It's probably time to turn the page.' The White House built Musk a dignified off-ramp, with aides putting together an exit plan that would allow Musk to leave the team on good terms. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had often found herself in the unenviable position of trying to manage Musk—a man Trump privately described as part genius, part child. But in the hours before his departure, Musk was dealt a disappointment over a government job that was very important to SpaceX. Trump had announced Jared Isaacman, an aviation entrepreneur and a Musk ally, as his pick for NASA administrator in early December. But Isaacman faced opposition on Capitol Hill, and the scheduling of his confirmation vote forced the issue last week. Trump, after hearing senators' complaints, asked Sergio Gor, the personnel director who had previously clashed with Musk, for Isaacman's vetting files. The White House was unhappy about the nominee's previous donations to Democrats, a White House official told us, and his nomination was withdrawn. [David A. Graham: Elon Musk goes nuclear] At the same time, Musk took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that encapsulated the entirety of the Republican legislative agenda. He privately lobbied Trump, Wiles, and House Speaker Mike Johnson to include an EV tax credit and then publicly torched the bill when they didn't, posting on Tuesday to his 220 million X followers: 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' The split has forced Republicans in Congress to choose between a president who demands their loyalty and a billionaire who helped fund their victory last year (and who could finance their opponents' campaigns, if he chooses to). Some rushed to proclaim their neutrality. 'I learned a long time ago when I was fighting to stay out of other people's fights,' Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a Trump ally, posted yesterday on X. (A former wrestler, Mullin had a brief professional career in mixed martial arts.) Other Republicans assumed the posture of a child begging their warring parents to get along for the sake of the family. Representative Beth Van Duyne began a post on X, 'We have the best chance to save America, save the world, and bring lasting prosperity.' Then she dropped the politesse: 'WE ARE STRONGER TOGETHER!! CEASE FIRE FOR GOD'S SAKE!' For GOP leaders, the choice seems to be an easy one: They have stuck with Trump, fiercely defending the bill they wrote on his behalf and are rushing to enact before the self-imposed July 4 deadline. After Musk took credit for the party's majorities in Congress as part of his X tirade yesterday, Johnson told reporters that the glory belonged not to Musk, but to the president. A few House conservatives seized on Musk's complaints about the deficit-busting nature of the bill and suggested that they might reconsider their support if the Senate does not improve the legislation. 'He made the biggest mistake in Washington,' a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak frankly told us. 'He told the truth. He is not wrong, even if he is annoying.' But Musk might have overplayed his hand in pivoting from policy to personal attacks on the president. 'He hasn't moved a vote,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters, according to NBC News. Perhaps realizing that he was destined to lose a fight he'd started, Musk appeared to cool off late yesterday, approvingly quoting social-media posts about stopping the fight and saying that he would not follow through on his threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spaceships, which are used to transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. He might have 38 billion reasons for seeking détente: That's the number of dollars his companies are believed to receive in government contracts, deals that could be canceled by a vengeful president. Musk spent nearly $300 million supporting Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 presidential election, but slumping Tesla sales worldwide—due, in large part, to anger about his alliance with Trump—are estimated to have cost him well over $100 billion since he took his government post. Tesla stock fell 14 percent the day of Musk's fight with Trump. As of early this afternoon, Trump had not posted again about the feud. He gave brief interviews to a few reporters in which he insisted that he was not thinking about Musk, though he referred to his once–top aide as 'the man who has lost his mind' to ABC News. Trump allies circulated to reporters allegations of Musk's drug use recently aired by The New York Times ('I think the ketamine finally rotted his brain,' one told us; Musk has disputed the Times report). White House aides, stung by Musk's eruption yesterday, let it be known that Trump has no intention of speaking with Musk today and that the president plans to sell or give away the Tesla he'd bought back in March as a show of support for Musk. Asked for comment on the breakup, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not mention Musk, saying instead that the administration will 'continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government' and that 'the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission.' Musk typically averages about 100 X posts a day. But through the afternoon today, he's posted only a handful, all promotions of his various businesses. None were about Trump. Article originally published at The Atlantic
