Alabama Senate committee hearing on police immunity bill draws critics
An Alabama Senate committee hearing Wednesday on a bill that would enhance immunity protections for law enforcement drew critics who feared the consequences for their communities.
Speakers at the public hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee said they feared HB 202, sponsored by Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, would allow law enforcement to act with impunity.
'This bill moves the needle to something that could be very dangerous,' said Gida Smith, a Montgomery resident. 'A police state seems far away from us, but police states do not happen overnight. They happen in increments, you allow a little of this, you allow a little of that, you exempt people from prosecution, you exempt the president from prosecution.'
The legislation establishes a heightened standard that law enforcement can be held liable for misconduct while performing their duties, and allows them a procedural hearing to determine if their actions are within the scope of their duties before a case can move forward that alleges wrongdoing.
'Here for me is the core of the bill,' Reynolds, a retired Huntsville law enforcement officer, told the committee before the public hearing. 'Law enforcement officers who use force constitutionally while carrying out their duties are immune from prosecution. Law enforcement officers are not immune for any unconstitutional use of force during any execution of duties. If it is unconstitutional, they have no coverage under this piece of legislation.'
Supporters of the legislation said it would align existing state statutes with case law.
'HB 202 is offered to amend certain laws, as you have already heard, that were last updated in 1979,' said Hoss Mack, executive director of the Alabama Sheriffs Association. 'It defines the definitions of 'use of force' incidents involving law enforcement in line with current federal law and United States Supreme Court decisions. In amending these laws, it will also align what is already being taught in law enforcement academies across this state.'
But critics were not convinced. Travis Jackson, a Montgomery resident who spoke against the legislation when it was in the House, said the legislation will not allow officers to protect and serve the public.
'Law enforcement will have a jail-free card due to not getting held accountable for their criminal mischief,' he said.
The bill passed the House of Representatives in March despite unified opposition from Democrats and attempts to filibuster the legislation.
HB 202 would change the law so that officers would have immunity so long as they do not violate people's rights in the U.S. or Alabama Constitution. Currently, law enforcement does not have immunity if they act 'willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.'
It also provides law enforcement with a court hearing to determine if they acted within the scope of their authority. If the court rules they acted within their duties, then either the civil lawsuit or the criminal case is dismissed.
The bill also provides police officers and deputies with protection from having to provide evidence during discovery in civil cases, and it allows them to assert the same immunity claims that they acted within the scope of their authority during the incident of alleged wrongdoing.
Nearly all Democrats on the committee said they opposed the legislation.
'It is a green light for Black folks to get killed,' said Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham. 'That is just the bottom line. It is a green light for Black folks to get killed, and the person has the opportunity to not be held accountable. It does that.'
Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham had concerns about people with a disability, such as people who have lost their sight or hearing, who then have trouble complying with the law enforcement orders.
'Oftentimes, if a person does not understand that, and he is using his own discretion in a situation, it could turn deadly,' she said.
At least one Republican lawmaker on the committee supports the bill.
'I want to thank you for bringing this bill,' said Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore. 'It is about time that we statutorily came to align with clarifying the roles and where those split-second decisions can be made.'
The committee did not vote on the legislation on Wednesday, but could do so next week.
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
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NH judge finds - once again - state is underfunding education
A New Hampshire judge has again ruled that the state is underfunding education. In a ruling issued Monday in the Rand School funding lawsuit, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff found New Hampshire's varying education property tax rate violates Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution — but stopped short of ordering the state to increase funding levels. Monday's ruling comes less than two months after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling in the ConVal lawsuit — which upheld the 'minimum, conservative threshold' of $7,356.01 for base adequacy. In both cases, the courts left the question of how to fund New Hampshire schools and how should money be spent on education for state legislators to decide. Judge Ruoff's ruling in Superior Court involved funding provided by the state for special education services and property tax rates paid to cover that gap. Zack Sheehan, executive director for the NH School Funding Fairness Project, called Ruoff's ruling a 'huge win for New Hampshire students and taxpayers.' 'The court once again found that the state is failing its constitutional duty,' Sheehan said in a statement. 'The overall adequacy funding levels from the state are unconstitutionally low, special education is severely underfunded, and taxpayers are forced to pay wildly different property tax rates that violate our rights.' The lawsuit — Steven Rand, et al. v. The State of New Hampshire — focused on the widely varying rates of taxes used to fund schools, a responsibility spelled out in the New Hampshire Constitution and Claremont I (1993) and Claremont II (1997) decisions. The lawsuit named three plaintiffs who face high burdens to fund schools because their towns have low property values. For example, plaintiff Steven Rand lives in Plymouth. The town has only $942,600 in property values to fund the education for each one of its students; nearby Waterville Valley has taxes more than five times that value — $5.4 million. The statewide average is $1.3 million. Two of the other taxpayers involved in the suit are from Penacook, an incorporated village of Concord. Robert Gabrielli is a retired physician who owns commercial property in Penacook, while Jessica and Adam Russell also live there. Jessica Russell is an at-large member of the Merrimack Valley School Board. School property taxes in Penacook were $16.74 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for the 2020-2021 school year; the school taxes for the same year in the rest of Concord were $13.81, the lawsuit said. Sheehan said Judge Ruoff's ruling differs from the ConVal ruling in two important ways — the Rand suit was brought by taxpayer plaintiffs, not school districts; and the Rand case argued against the levels of special education differentiated aid provided by the state, not just base adequacy. Plaintiffs argued the low levels of funding from the state result in widely different property tax rates needed to provide an adequate education for our public-school students. For example, in fiscal 2023, New Castle's school property tax rate was just $0.19 per $1,000 of value — while Brookline's was $14.98. At the time the lawsuit was filed in 2022, the state provided an additional $2,100 per student for special education services. The plaintiffs proved that evaluations alone averaged $1,667 per student — leaving almost nothing for actual services. 'The math does not lie,' Ruoff wrote. In 2024, local property taxes funded 83% of special education services. That same year, 70 school districts spent over 25% of their budgets on special education related services, up 10 districts from 2023. During the trial, plaintiffs presented witnesses who spoke to the inability of school districts to educate their students with only adequacy aid, and the financial realities of running a school district and providing necessary and mandated services to students. 'I said it with the ConVal ruling, and I will say it again: it is past time for the Legislature to act,' Sheehan said. 'What will they do? What is their plan to comply? The Legislature has a duty to fix our school funding system to ensure that every child, regardless of their zip code or family income, has access to a high-quality public education and that taxpayers are treated fairly.' Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tulsi Gabbard revokes security clearances of 37 former intelligence officials
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced on Aug. 19 that President Donald Trump had directed her office to revoke security clearances from 37 former intelligence officials for 'politicizing and manipulating intelligence.' 'Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold,' she wrote in an X post that contained a memo her office had sent out. 'In doing so, they undermine our national security, the safety and security of the American people and the foundational principles of our democratic republic.' The former officials who are all accused of 'leaking classified intelligence without authorization,' include Biden administration officials Emily Horne, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, and Dilpreet Sidhu, who served as a deputy chief of staff at the National Security Council. Last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report that claimed to demonstrate how the former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet had 'manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup' against Trump after he had defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Obama's office dismissed the claims as another example of the constant "nonsense and misinformation" that emanates out of the White House. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Obama's office said in a statement on July 22. 'These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.' Rubio now serves as Trump's secretary of state. On his first day in office, Trump revoked the security clearance of his former national security adviser John Bolton as well as his Secret Service protection.
Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump and Putin are both criticizing mail-in voting. Election officials are freaking out.
Trump has long claimed that mail-in voting leads to increased voter fraud, though there has been little evidence to support this. Around one-third of the electorate submitted their ballots by mail in the 2024 elections. The U.S. president's attempts to change the voting process may also not pass legal scrutiny. State governments are in charge of holding elections, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, and any executive order or law seeking to overturn states' rights on this issue is certain to be challenged in court. Still, the Trump administration has taken steps in recent months to weaken U.S. election security in other ways. The administration froze efforts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to help protect election infrastructure and challenge election-related misinformation . In addition, a team that had responded to foreign election interference was disbanded in February. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), the chief election official in her state, said Trump's actions so far have 'already made our elections less secure.' 'Trump is trying to grab power ahead of the 2026 election,' Griswold said of the recent actions. 'This is a direct attack on democracy.' The White House insists that Trump's effort to end the use of mail-in ballots is meant to enhance election security. 'President Trump wants to secure America's elections and protect the vote, restoring the integrity of our elections by requiring voter ID, ensuring no illegal ballots are cast, and preventing cheating through lax and incompetent voting laws in states like California and New York,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. But the timing of Trump's announcement — right after a high-stakes meeting with Putin — has heightened concerns that Trump's actions, nudged by Putin, are aimed at suppressing certain voters and downgrading election security by eroding trust in the electoral process.
