- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Rept. 116-434
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2020
_______
June 19, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7120]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 7120) to hold law enforcement accountable for
misconduct in court, improve transparency through data
collection, and reform police training and policies, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 37
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 39
Hearings......................................................... 68
Committee Consideration.......................................... 69
Committee Votes.................................................. 69
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 95
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional
Budget Office Cost Estimate.................................... 95
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 95
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 95
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 95
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 95
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 113
Committee Correspondence......................................... 138
Minority Views................................................... 140
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act of 2020''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts
Sec. 101. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Sec. 102. Qualified immunity reform.
Sec. 103. Pattern and practice investigations.
Sec. 104. Independent investigations.
Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act
Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Definitions.
Sec. 113. Accreditation of law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 114. Law enforcement grants.
Sec. 115. Attorney General to conduct study.
Sec. 116. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 117. National task force on law enforcement oversight.
Sec. 118. Federal data collection on law enforcement practices.
TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA
Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry
Sec. 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry.
Sec. 202. Certification requirements for hiring of law enforcement
officers.
Subtitle B--PRIDE Act
Sec. 221. Short title.
Sec. 222. Definitions.
Sec. 223. Use of force reporting.
Sec. 224. Use of force data reporting.
Sec. 225. Compliance with reporting requirements.
Sec. 226. Federal law enforcement reporting.
Sec. 227. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES
Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling
Sec. 311. Prohibition.
Sec. 312. Enforcement.
Part II--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies
Sec. 321. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.
Part III--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies
Sec. 331. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 332. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 333. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 334. Development of best practices.
Sec. 335. Authorization of appropriations.
Part IV--Data Collection
Sec. 341. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 342. Publication of data.
Sec. 343. Limitations on publication of data.
Part V--Department of Justice Regulations and Reports on Racial
Profiling in the United States
Sec. 351. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.
Subtitle B--Additional Reforms
Sec. 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene.
Sec. 362. Ban on no-knock warrants in drug cases.
Sec. 363. Incentivizing banning of chokeholds and carotid holds.
Sec. 364. PEACE Act.
Sec. 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.
Sec. 366. Public safety innovation grants.
Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Part 1--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act
Sec. 371. Short title.
Sec. 372. Requirements for Federal law enforcement officers regarding
the use of body cameras.
Sec. 373. Patrol vehicles with in-car video recording cameras.
Sec. 374. Facial recognition technology.
Sec. 375. GAO study.
Sec. 376. Regulations.
Sec. 377. Rule of construction.
Part 2--Police CAMERA Act
Sec. 381. Short title.
Sec. 382. Law enforcement body-worn camera requirements.
TITLE IV--JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings.
Sec. 403. Lynching.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Severability.
Sec. 502. Savings clause.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Byrne grant program.--The term ``Byrne grant program''
means any grant program under subpart 1 of part E of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10151 et seq.), without regard to whether the funds are
characterized as being made available under the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs,
the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or
otherwise.
(2) COPS grant program.--The term ``COPS grant program''
means the grant program authorized under section 1701 of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10381).
(3) Federal law enforcement agency.--The term ``Federal law
enforcement agency'' means any agency of the United States
authorized to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection,
investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal
criminal law.
(4) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal law
enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in section
115 of title 18, United States Code.
(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the meaning
given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 901 of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10251).
(6) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law
enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of
a State or unit of local government authorized by law or by a
government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the term
in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(8) Tribal law enforcement officer.--The term ``tribal law
enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of
an Indian tribe, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, authorized by
law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law.
(9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(10) Deadly force.--The term ``deadly force'' means that
force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause
death or serious bodily harm, including--
(A) the discharge of a firearm;
(B) a maneuver that restricts blood or oxygen flow to
the brain, including chokeholds, strangleholds, neck
restraints, neckholds, and carotid artery restraints;
and
(C) multiple discharges of an electronic control
weapon.
(11) Use of force.--The term ``use of force'' includes--
(A) the use of a firearm, Taser, explosive device,
chemical agent (such as pepper spray), baton, impact
projectile, blunt instrument, hand, fist, foot, canine,
or vehicle against an individual;
(B) the use of a weapon, including a personal body
weapon, chemical agent, impact weapon, extended range
impact weapon, sonic weapon, sensory weapon, conducted
energy device, or firearm, against an individual; or
(C) any intentional pointing of a firearm at an
individual.
(12) Less lethal force.--The term ``less lethal force'' means
any degree of force that is not likely to cause death or
serious bodily injury.
(13) Facial recognition.--The term ``facial recognition''
means an automated or semiautomated process that analyzes
biometric data of an individual from video footage to identify
or assist in identifying an individual.
TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts
SEC. 101. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``willfully'' and inserting ``knowingly or
recklessly'';
(2) by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of
this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in
death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the
death of the person.''.
SEC. 102. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM.
Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C.
1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``It shall not be
a defense or immunity in any action brought under this section against
a local law enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2
of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020), or in any action
under any source of law against a Federal investigative or law
enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2680(h) of
title 28, United States Code), that--
``(1) the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the
defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her
conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct was committed;
or
``(2) the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws were not clearly established at the time
of their deprivation by the defendant, or that at such time,
the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant
could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or
her conduct was lawful.''.
SEC. 103. PATTERN AND PRACTICE INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Subpoena Authority.--Section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, by prosecutors,''
after ``conduct by law enforcement officers'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and
inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subpoena Authority.--In carrying out the authority in
subsection (b), the Attorney General may require by subpoena the
production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records,
accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including
electronically stored information), as well as any tangible thing and
documentary evidence, and the attendance and testimony of witnesses
necessary in the performance of the Attorney General under subsection
(b). Such a subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey,
shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate district court of the
United States.
``(d) Civil Action by State Attorneys General.--Whenever it shall
appear to the attorney general of any State, or such other official as
a State may designate, that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred
within their State, the State attorney general or official, in the name
of the State, may bring a civil action in the appropriate district
court of the United States to obtain appropriate equitable and
declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. In carrying
out the authority in this subsection, the State attorney general or
official shall have the same subpoena authority as is available to the
Attorney General under subsection (c).
``(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to limit the authority of the Attorney General under subsection (b) in
any case in which a State attorney general has brought a civil action
under subsection (d).
``(f) Reporting Requirements.--On the date that is one year after the
enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, and
annually thereafter, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice shall make publicly available on an internet website a report
on, during the previous year--
``(1) the number of preliminary investigations of violations
of subsection (a) that were commenced;
``(2) the number of preliminary investigations of violations
of subsection (a) that were resolved; and
``(3) the status of any pending investigations of violations
of subsection (a).''.
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General may award a
grant to a State to assist the State in conducting pattern and
practice investigations under section 210401(d) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12601).
(2) Application.--A State seeking a grant under paragraph (1)
shall submit an application in such form, at such time, and
containing such information as the Attorney General may
require.
(3) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 to the Attorney General for each of fiscal years
2021 through 2023 to carry out this subsection.
(c) Data on Excessive Use of Force.--Section 210402 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12602) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The Attorney General'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) State collection of data.--The attorney general of a
State may, through appropriate means, acquire data about the
use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and such
data may be used by the attorney general in conducting
investigations under section 210401. This data may not contain
any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or
any law enforcement officer.''; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Limitation on Use of Data Acquired by the Attorney General.--
Data acquired under subsection (a)(1) shall be used only for research
or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may
reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.''.
SEC. 104. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Independent investigation.--The term
``independent investigation'' means a criminal
investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement
officer's use of deadly force, including one or more of
the following:
(i) Using an agency or civilian review board
that investigates and independently reviews all
allegations of use of deadly force made against
law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction.
(ii) Assigning of the attorney general of the
State in which the alleged use of deadly force
was committed to conduct the criminal
investigation and prosecution.
(iii) Adopting a procedure under which an
independent prosecutor is assigned to
investigate and prosecute the case, including a
procedure under which an automatic referral is
made to an independent prosecutor appointed and
overseen by the attorney general of the State
in which the alleged use of deadly force was
committed.
(iv) Adopting a procedure under which an
independent prosecutor is assigned to
investigate and prosecute the case.
(v) Having law enforcement agencies agree to
and implement memoranda of understanding with
other law enforcement agencies under which the
other law enforcement agencies--
(I) shall conduct the criminal
investigation into the alleged use of
deadly force; and
(II) upon conclusion of the criminal
investigation, shall file a report with
the attorney general of the State
containing a determination regarding
whether--
(aa) the use of deadly force
was appropriate; and
(bb) any action should be
taken by the attorney general
of the State.
(vi) Any substantially similar procedure to
ensure impartiality in the investigation or
prosecution.
(B) Independent investigation of law enforcement
statute.--The term ``independent investigation of law
enforcement statute'' means a statute requiring an
independent investigation in a criminal matter in
which--
(i) one or more of the possible defendants is
a law enforcement officer;
(ii) one or more of the alleged offenses
involves the law enforcement officer's use of
deadly force in the course of carrying out that
officer's duty; and
(iii) the non-Federal law enforcement
officer's use of deadly force resulted in a
death or injury.
(C) Independent prosecutor.--The term ``independent
prosecutor'' means, with respect to a criminal
investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement
officer's use of deadly force, a prosecutor who--
(i) does not oversee or regularly rely on the
law enforcement agency by which the law
enforcement officer under investigation is
employed; and
(ii) would not be involved in the prosecution
in the ordinary course of that prosecutor's
duties.
(2) Grant program.--The Attorney General may award grants to
eligible States and Indian Tribes to assist in implementing an
independent investigation of law enforcement statute.
(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
subsection, a State or Indian Tribe shall have in effect an
independent investigation of law enforcement statute.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Attorney General $750,000,000 for fiscal
years 2021 through 2023 to carry out this subsection.
(b) COPS Grant Program Used for Civilian Review Boards.--Part Q of
title I of the of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 1701(b) (34 U.S.C. 10381(b))--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (22) and (23) as
paragraphs (23) and (24), respectively;
(B) in paragraph (23), as so redesignated, by
striking ``(21)'' and inserting ``(22)''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22) to develop best practices for and to create civilian
review boards;''; and
(2) in section 1709 (34 U.S.C. 10389), by adding at the end
the following:
``(8) `civilian review board' means an administrative entity
that investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement
officers and--
``(A) is independent and adequately funded;
``(B) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
``(C) has representative community diversity;
``(D) has policy making authority;
``(E) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
``(F) may conduct hearings; and
``(G) conducts statistical studies on prevailing
complaint trends.''.
Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act
SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Trust and
Integrity Act of 2020''.
SEC. 112. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Community-based organization.--The term ``community-based
organization'' means a grassroots organization that monitors
the issue of police misconduct and that has a local or national
presence and membership, such as the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), UnidosUS, the National Urban League,
the National Congress of American Indians, or the National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC).
(2) Law enforcement accreditation organization.--The term
``law enforcement accreditation organization'' means a
professional law enforcement organization involved in the
development of standards of accreditation for law enforcement
agencies at the national, State, regional, or Tribal level,
such as the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA).
(3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a State, local, Indian tribal, or campus public
agency engaged in the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution, or adjudication of violations of criminal laws.
(4) Professional law enforcement association.--The term
``professional law enforcement association'' means a law
enforcement membership association that works for the needs of
Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal law enforcement
agencies and with the civilian community on matters of common
interest, such as the Hispanic American Police Command Officers
Association (HAPCOA), the National Asian Pacific Officers
Association (NAPOA), the National Black Police Association
(NBPA), the National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA),
the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
(NOBLE), Women in Law Enforcement, the Native American Law
Enforcement Association (NALEA), the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Sheriffs' Association
(NSA), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), or the National
Association of School Resource Officers.
(5) Professional civilian oversight organization.--The term
``professional civilian oversight organization'' means a
membership organization formed to address and advance civilian
oversight of law enforcement and whose members are from
Federal, State, regional, local, or Tribal organizations that
review issues or complaints against law enforcement agencies or
officers, such as the National Association for Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE).
SEC. 113. ACCREDITATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(a) Standards.--
(1) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an
initial analysis of existing accreditation standards and
methodology developed by law enforcement accreditation
organizations nationwide, including national, State, regional,
and Tribal accreditation organizations. Such an analysis shall
include a review of the recommendations of the Final Report of
the President's Taskforce on 21st Century Policing, issued by
the Department of Justice, in May 2015.
(2) Development of uniform standards.--After completion of
the initial review and analysis under paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall--
(A) recommend, in consultation with law enforcement
accreditation organizations and community-based
organizations, the adoption of additional standards
that will result in greater community accountability of
law enforcement agencies and an increased focus on
policing with a guardian mentality, including standards
relating to--
(i) early warning systems and related
intervention programs;
(ii) use of force procedures;
(iii) civilian review procedures;
(iv) traffic and pedestrian stop and search
procedures;
(v) data collection and transparency;
(vi) administrative due process requirements;
(vii) video monitoring technology;
(viii) youth justice and school safety; and
(ix) recruitment, hiring, and training; and
(B) recommend additional areas for the development of
national standards for the accreditation of law
enforcement agencies in consultation with existing law
enforcement accreditation organizations, professional
law enforcement associations, labor organizations,
community-based organizations, and professional
civilian oversight organizations.
(3) Continuing accreditation process.--The Attorney General
shall adopt policies and procedures to partner with law
enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law
enforcement associations, labor organizations, community-based
organizations, and professional civilian oversight
organizations to--
(A) continue the development of further accreditation
standards consistent with paragraph (2);
(B) encourage the pursuit of accreditation of
Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement
agencies by certified law enforcement accreditation
organizations; and
(C) develop recommendations for implementation of a
national accreditation requirement tied to Federal
grant eligibility.
(b) Use of Funds Requirements.--Section 502(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of
the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
assist law enforcement agencies of the applicant, including
campus public safety departments, gain or maintain
accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation
organizations in accordance with section 113 of the Law
Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.''.
SEC. 114. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10153(a)), as amended by section 113, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(8) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of
the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
study and implement effective management, training, recruiting,
hiring, and oversight standards and programs to promote
effective community and problem solving strategies for law
enforcement agencies in accordance with section 114 of the Law
Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.''.
(b) Grant Program for Community Organizations.--The Attorney General
may make grants to community-based organizations to study and
implement--
(1) effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and
oversight standards and programs to promote effective community
and problem solving strategies for law enforcement agencies; or
(2) effective strategies and solutions to public safety,
including strategies that do not rely on Federal and local law
enforcement agency responses.
(c) Use of Funds.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (8) of
section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by subsection (a) of this
section, and grant amounts awarded under subsection (b) shall be used
to--
(1) study management and operations standards for law
enforcement agencies, including standards relating to
administrative due process, residency requirements,
compensation and benefits, use of force, racial profiling,
early warning and intervention systems, youth justice, school
safety, civilian review boards or analogous procedures, or
research into the effectiveness of existing programs, projects,
or other activities designed to address misconduct; and
(2) develop pilot programs and implement effective standards
and programs in the areas of training, hiring and recruitment,
and oversight that are designed to improve management and
address misconduct by law enforcement officers.
(d) Components of Pilot Program.--A pilot program developed under
subsection (c)(2) shall include implementation of the following:
(1) Training.--The implementation of policies, practices, and
procedures addressing training and instruction to comply with
accreditation standards in the areas of--
(A) the use of deadly force, less lethal force, and
de-escalation tactics and techniques;
(B) investigation of officer misconduct and practices
and procedures for referring to prosecuting authorities
allegations of officer use of excessive force or racial
profiling;
(C) disproportionate contact by law enforcement with
minority communities;
(D) tactical and defensive strategy;
(E) arrests, searches, and restraint;
(F) professional verbal communications with
civilians;
(G) interactions with--
(i) youth;
(ii) individuals with disabilities;
(iii) individuals with limited English
proficiency; and
(iv) multi-cultural communities;
(H) proper traffic, pedestrian, and other enforcement
stops; and
(I) community relations and bias awareness.
(2) Recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of diverse
law enforcement officers.--Policies, procedures, and practices
for--
(A) the hiring and recruitment of diverse law
enforcement officers who are representative of the
communities they serve;
(B) the development of selection, promotion,
educational, background, and psychological standards
that comport with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); and
(C) initiatives to encourage residency in the
jurisdiction served by the law enforcement agency and
continuing education.
(3) Oversight.--Complaint procedures, including the
establishment of civilian review boards or analogous procedures
for jurisdictions across a range of sizes and agency
configurations, complaint procedures by community-based
organizations, early warning systems and related intervention
programs, video monitoring technology, data collection and
transparency, and administrative due process requirements
inherent to complaint procedures for members of the public and
law enforcement.
(4) Youth justice and school safety.--Uniform standards on
youth justice and school safety that include best practices for
law enforcement interaction and communication with children and
youth, taking into consideration adolescent development and any
disability, including--
(A) the right to effective and timely notification of
a parent or legal guardian of any law enforcement
interaction, regardless of the immigration status of
the individuals involved; and
(B) the creation of positive school climates by
improving school conditions for learning by--
(i) eliminating school-based arrests and
referrals to law enforcement;
(ii) using evidence-based preventative
measures and alternatives to school-based
arrests and referrals to law enforcement, such
as restorative justice and healing practices;
and
(iii) using school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports.
(5) Victim services.--Counseling services, including
psychological counseling, for individuals and communities
impacted by law enforcement misconduct.
(e) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide technical
assistance to States and community-based organizations in
furtherance of the purposes of this section.
(2) Models for reduction of law enforcement misconduct.--The
technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may
include the development of models for States and community-
based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer
misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in
consultation with community-based organizations.
(f) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may use any component or
components of the Department of Justice in carrying out this section.
(g) Applications.--An application for a grant under subsection (b)
shall be submitted in such form, and contain such information, as the
Attorney General may prescribe by rule.
(h) Performance Evaluation.--
(1) Monitoring components.--
(A) In general.--Each program, project, or activity
funded under this section shall contain a monitoring
component, which shall be developed pursuant to rules
made by the Attorney General.
(B) Requirement.--Each monitoring component required
under subparagraph (A) shall include systematic
identification and collection of data about activities,
accomplishments, and programs throughout the duration
of the program, project, or activity and presentation
of such data in a usable form.
(2) Evaluation components.--
(A) In general.--Selected grant recipients shall be
evaluated on the local level or as part of a national
evaluation, pursuant to rules made by the Attorney
General.
(B) Requirements.--An evaluation conducted under
subparagraph (A) may include independent audits of
police behavior and other assessments of individual
program implementations. For community-based
organizations in selected jurisdictions that are able
to support outcome evaluations, the effectiveness of
funded programs, projects, and activities may be
required.
(3) Periodic review and reports.--The Attorney General may
require a grant recipient to submit biannually to the Attorney
General the results of the monitoring and evaluations required
under paragraphs (1) and (2) and such other data and
information as the Attorney General determines to be necessary.
(i) Revocation or Suspension of Funding.--If the Attorney General
determines, as a result of monitoring under subsection (h) or
otherwise, that a grant recipient under the Byrne grant program or
under subsection (b) is not in substantial compliance with the
requirements of this section, the Attorney General may revoke or
suspend funding of that grant, in whole or in part.
(j) Civilian Review Board Defined.--In this section, the term
``civilian review board'' means an administrative entity that
investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement officers and--
(1) is independent and adequately funded;
(2) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
(3) has representative community diversity;
(4) has policy making authority;
(5) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
(6) may conduct hearings; and
(7) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint
trends.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Attorney General $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2021
to carry out the grant program authorized under subsection (b).
SEC. 115. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a
nationwide study of the prevalence and effect of any law, rule,
or procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to delay the
response to questions posed by a local internal affairs
officer, or review board on the investigative integrity and
prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, including pre-
interview warnings and termination policies.
(2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an
initial analysis of existing State laws, rules, and procedures
to determine whether, at a threshold level, the effect of the
type of law, rule, or procedure that raises material
investigatory issues that could impair or hinder a prompt and
thorough investigation of possible misconduct, including
criminal conduct.
(3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial
analysis under paragraph (2), and considering material
investigatory issues, the Attorney General shall gather
additional data nationwide on similar laws, rules, and
procedures from a representative and statistically significant
sample of jurisdictions, to determine whether such laws, rules,
and procedures raise such material investigatory issues.
(b) Reporting.--
(1) Initial analysis.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--
(A) submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the initial analysis conducted under
subsection (a)(2);
(B) make the report submitted under subparagraph (A)
available to the public; and
(C) identify the jurisdictions for which the study
described in subsection (a)(3) is to be conducted.
(2) Data collected.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the data collected
under this section and publish the report in the Federal
Register.
SEC. 116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2021, in
addition to any other sums authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $25,000,000 for additional expenses relating to the
enforcement of section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), criminal
enforcement under sections 241 and 242 of title 18, United
States Code, and administrative enforcement by the Department
of Justice of such sections, including compliance with consent
decrees or judgments entered into under such section 210401;
and
(2) $3,300,000 for additional expenses related to conflict
resolution by the Department of Justice's Community Relations
Service.
SEC. 117. NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Department of
Justice a task force to be known as the Task Force on Law Enforcement
Oversight (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Task
Force'').
(b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of individuals
appointed by the Attorney General, who shall appoint not less than 1
individual from each of the following:
(1) The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(2) The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.
(3) The Federal Coordination and Compliance Section of the
Civil Rights Division.
(4) The Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(5) The Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(6) The Office of Justice Programs.
(7) The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS).
(8) The Corruption/Civil Rights Section of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
(9) The Community Relations Service.
(10) The Office of Tribal Justice.
(11) The unit within the Department of Justice assigned as a
liaison for civilian review boards.
(c) Powers and Duties.--The Task Force shall consult with
professional law enforcement associations, labor organizations, and
community-based organizations to coordinate the process of the
detection and referral of complaints regarding incidents of alleged law
enforcement misconduct.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this section.
SEC. 118. FEDERAL DATA COLLECTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES.
(a) Agencies To Report.--Each Federal, State, Tribal, and local law
enforcement agency shall report data of the practices enumerated in
subsection (c) of that agency to the Attorney General.
(b) Breakdown of Information by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender.--For
each practice enumerated in subsection (c), the reporting law
enforcement agency shall provide a breakdown of the numbers of
incidents of that practice by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the
officers of the agency and of members of the public involved in the
practice.
(c) Practices To Be Reported on.--The practices to be reported on are
the following:
(1) Traffic violation stops.
(2) Pedestrian stops.
(3) Frisk and body searches.
(4) Instances where law enforcement officers used deadly
force, including--
(A) a description of when and where deadly force was
used, and whether it resulted in death;
(B) a description of deadly force directed against an
officer and whether it resulted in injury or death; and
(C) the law enforcement agency's justification for
use of deadly force, if the agency determines it was
justified.
(d) Retention of Data.--Each law enforcement agency required to
report data under this section shall maintain records relating to any
matter reported for not less than 4 years after those records are
created.
(e) Penalty for States Failing To Report as Required.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year, a State shall not
receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that
State under section 505(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10156(a)), or
any amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of
the Department of Justice, unless the State has ensured, to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the State and each
local law enforcement agency of the State is in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this section.
(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated by reason of this
subsection shall be reallocated to States not disqualified by
failure to comply with this section.
(f) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this section.
TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA
Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POLICE MISCONDUCT REGISTRY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a National Police
Misconduct Registry to be compiled and maintained by the Department of
Justice.
(b) Contents of Registry.--The Registry required to be established
under subsection (a) shall contain the following data with respect to
all Federal and local law enforcement officers:
(1) Each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer,
aggregated by--
(A) complaints that were found to be credible or that
resulted in disciplinary action against the law
enforcement officer, disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling
(as such term is defined in section 302);
(B) complaints that are pending review, disaggregated
by whether the complaint involved a use of force or
racial profiling; and
(C) complaints for which the law enforcement officer
was exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded
or not sustained, disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
(2) Discipline records, disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
(3) Termination records, the reason for each termination,
disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force
or racial profiling.
(4) Records of certification in accordance with section 202.
(5) Records of lawsuits against law enforcement officers and
settlements of such lawsuits.
(c) Federal Agency Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter,
the head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall submit to the
Attorney General the information described in subsection (b).
(d) State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Reporting Requirements.--
Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is
one year after the date of enactment of this Act and each fiscal year
thereafter in which a State receives funds under the Byrne grant
program, the State shall, once every 180 days, submit to the Attorney
General the information described in subsection (b) for the State and
each local law enforcement agency within the State.
(e) Public Availability of Registry.--
(1) In general.--In establishing the Registry required under
subsection (a), the Attorney General shall make the Registry
available to the public on an internet website of the Attorney
General in a manner that allows members of the public to search
for an individual law enforcement officer's records of
misconduct, as described in subsection (b), involving a use of
force or racial profiling.
(2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to supersede the requirements or limitations under
section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as
the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').
SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HIRING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
(a) In General.-- Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins
after the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, a State or unit of local government, other than an Indian Tribe,
may not receive funds under the Byrne grant program for that fiscal
year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State
or unit of local government has not--
(1) submitted to the Attorney General evidence that the State
or unit of local government has a certification and
decertification program for purposes of employment as a law
enforcement officer in that State or unit of local government
that is consistent with the rules made under subsection (c);
and
(2) submitted to the National Police Misconduct Registry
established under section 201 records demonstrating that all
law enforcement officers of the State or unit of local
government have completed all State certification requirements
during the 1-year period preceding the fiscal year.
(b) Availability of Information.--The Attorney General shall make
available to law enforcement agencies all information in the registry
under section 201 for purposes of compliance with the certification and
decertification programs described in subsection (a)(1) and considering
applications for employment.
(c) Rules.--The Attorney General shall make rules to carry out this
section and section 201, including uniform reporting standards.
Subtitle B--PRIDE Act
SEC. 221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Police Reporting Information,
Data, and Evidence Act of 2020'' or the ``PRIDE Act of 2020''.
SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 8101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(2) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law
enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in section
2, and includes a school resource officer.
(3) School.--The term ``school'' means an elementary school
or secondary school (as those terms are defined in section 8101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7801)).
(4) School resource officer.--The term ``school resource
officer'' means a sworn law enforcement officer who is--
(A) assigned by the employing law enforcement agency
to a local educational agency or school;
(B) contracting with a local educational agency or
school; or
(C) employed by a local educational agency or school.
SEC. 223. USE OF FORCE REPORTING.
(a) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that
begins after the date that is one year after the date of
enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in which
a State or Indian Tribe receives funds under a Byrne grant
program, the State or Indian Tribe shall--
(A) report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly
basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the
Attorney General, information regarding--
(i) any incident involving the use of deadly
force against a civilian by--
(I) a local law enforcement officer
who is employed by the State or by a
unit of local government in the State;
or
(II) a tribal law enforcement officer
who is employed by the Indian Tribe;
(ii) any incident involving the shooting of a
local law enforcement officer or tribal law
enforcement officer described in clause (i) by
a civilian;
(iii) any incident involving the death or
arrest of a local law enforcement officer or
tribal law enforcement officer;
(iv) any incident during which use of force
by or against a local law enforcement officer
or tribal law enforcement officer described in
clause (i) occurs, which is not reported under
clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
(v) deaths in custody; and
(vi) uses of force in arrests and booking;
(B) establish a system and a set of policies to
ensure that all use of force incidents are reported by
local law enforcement officers or tribal law
enforcement officers; and
(C) submit to the Attorney General a plan for the
collection of data required to be reported under this
section, including any modifications to a previously
submitted data collection plan.
(2) Report information required.--
(A) In general.--The report required under paragraph
(1)(A) shall contain information that includes, at a
minimum--
(i) the national origin, sex, race,
ethnicity, age, disability, English language
proficiency, and housing status of each
civilian against whom a local law enforcement
officer or tribal law enforcement officer used
force;
(ii) the date, time, and location, including
whether it was on school grounds, and the zip
code, of the incident and whether the
jurisdiction in which the incident occurred
allows for the open-carry or concealed-carry of
a firearm;
(iii) whether the civilian was armed, and, if
so, the type of weapon the civilian had;
(iv) the type of force used against the
officer, the civilian, or both, including the
types of weapons used;
(v) the reason force was used;
(vi) a description of any injuries sustained
as a result of the incident;
(vii) the number of officers involved in the
incident;
(viii) the number of civilians involved in
the incident; and
(ix) a brief description regarding the
circumstances surrounding the incident, which
shall include information on--
(I) the type of force used by all
involved persons;
(II) the legitimate police objective
necessitating the use of force;
(III) the resistance encountered by
each local law enforcement officer or
tribal law enforcement officer involved
in the incident;
(IV) the efforts by local law
enforcement officers or tribal law
enforcement officers to--
(aa) de-escalate the
situation in order to avoid the
use of force; or
(bb) minimize the level of
force used; and
(V) if applicable, the reason why
efforts described in subclause (IV)
were not attempted.
(B) Incidents reported under death in custody
reporting act.--A State or Indian Tribe is not required
to include in a report under subsection (a)(1) an
incident reported by the State or Indian Tribe in
accordance with section 20104(a)(2) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34
U.S.C. 12104(a)(2)).
(C) Retention of data.--Each law enforcement agency
required to report data under this section shall
maintain records relating to any matter so reportable
for not less than 4 years after those records are
created.
(3) Audit of use-of-force reporting.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year
thereafter, each State or Indian Tribe described in paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) conduct an audit of the use of force incident
reporting system required to be established under
paragraph (1)(B); and
(B) submit a report to the Attorney General on the
audit conducted under subparagraph (A).
(4) Compliance procedure.--Prior to submitting a report under
paragraph (1)(A), the State or Indian Tribe submitting such
report shall compare the information compiled to be reported
pursuant to clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) to publicly
available sources, and shall revise such report to include any
incident determined to be missing from the report based on such
comparison. Failure to comply with the procedures described in
the previous sentence shall be considered a failure to comply
with the requirements of this section.
(b) Ineligibility for Funds.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year in which a State or
Indian Tribe fails to comply with this section, the State or
Indian Tribe, at the discretion of the Attorney General, shall
be subject to not more than a 10-percent reduction of the funds
that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the
State or Indian Tribe under a Byrne grant program.
(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a Byrne grant
program in accordance with paragraph (1) to a State for failure
to comply with this section shall be reallocated under the
Byrne grant program to States that have not failed to comply
with this section.
(3) Information regarding school resource officers.--The
State or Indian Tribe shall ensure that all schools and local
educational agencies within the jurisdiction of the State or
Indian Tribe provide the State or Indian Tribe with the
information needed regarding school resource officers to comply
with this section.
(c) Public Availability of Data.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall publish, and make available to the public, a
report containing the data reported to the Attorney General
under this section.
(2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to supersede the requirements or limitations under
section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as
the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').
(d) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall issue guidance on best
practices relating to establishing standard data collection systems
that capture the information required to be reported under subsection
(a)(2), which shall include standard and consistent definitions for
terms.
SEC. 224. USE OF FORCE DATA REPORTING.
(a) Technical Assistance Grants Authorized.--The Attorney General may
make grants to eligible law enforcement agencies to be used for the
activities described in subsection (c).
(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a law enforcement agency shall--
(1) be a tribal law enforcement agency or be located in a
State that receives funds under a Byrne grant program;
(2) employ not more that 100 local or tribal law enforcement
officers;
(3) demonstrate that the use of force policy for local law
enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers
employed by the law enforcement agency is publicly available;
and
(4) establish and maintain a complaint system that--
(A) may be used by members of the public to report
incidents of use of force to the law enforcement
agency;
(B) makes all information collected publicly
searchable and available; and
(C) provides information on the status of an
investigation related to a use of force complaint.
(c) Activities Described.--A grant made under this section may be
used by a law enforcement agency for--
(1) the cost of assisting the State or Indian Tribe in which
the law enforcement agency is located in complying with the
reporting requirements described in section 223;
(2) the cost of establishing necessary systems required to
investigate and report incidents as required under subsection
(b)(4);
(3) public awareness campaigns designed to gain information
from the public on use of force by or against local and tribal
law enforcement officers, including shootings, which may
include tip lines, hotlines, and public service announcements;
and
(4) use of force training for law enforcement agencies and
personnel, including training on de-escalation, implicit bias,
crisis intervention techniques, and adolescent development.
SEC. 225. COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall conduct
an audit and review of the information provided under this subtitle to
determine whether each State or Indian Tribe described in section
223(a)(1) is in compliance with the requirements of this subtitle.
(b) Consistency in Data Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Any data reported under this subtitle shall
be collected and reported--
(A) in a manner consistent with existing programs of
the Department of Justice that collect data on local
law enforcement officer encounters with civilians; and
(B) in a manner consistent with civil rights laws for
distribution of information to the public.
(2) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--
(A) issue guidelines on the reporting requirement
under section 223; and
(B) seek public comment before finalizing the
guidelines required under subparagraph (A).
SEC. 226. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING.
The head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall submit to the
Attorney General, on a quarterly basis and pursuant to guidelines
established by the Attorney General, the information required to be
reported by a State or Indian Tribe under section 223.
SEC. 227. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such
sums as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.
TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES
Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``End Racial and Religious
Profiling Act of 2020'' or ``ERRPA''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means any
program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made
available under--
(A) a Byrne grant program; and
(B) the COPS grant program, except that no program,
project, or other activity specified in section
1701(b)(13) of part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381
et seq.) shall be a covered program under this
paragraph.
(2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body'' means
any department, agency, special purpose district, or other
instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian Tribal
government.
(3) Hit rate.--The term ``hit rate'' means the percentage of
stops and searches in which a law enforcement agent finds
drugs, a gun, or something else that leads to an arrest. The
hit rate is calculated by dividing the total number of searches
by the number of searches that yield contraband. The hit rate
is complementary to the rate of false stops.
(4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means any Federal, State, or local public agency
engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of
violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws.
(5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement
agent'' means any Federal, State, or local official responsible
for enforcing criminal, immigration, or customs laws, including
police officers and other agents of a law enforcement agency.
(6) Racial profiling.--
(A) In general.--The term ``racial profiling'' means
the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency
relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender
identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which
individual to subject to routine or spontaneous
investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope
and substance of law enforcement activity following the
initial investigatory procedure, except when there is
trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and
timeframe, that links a person with a particular
characteristic described in this paragraph to an
identified criminal incident or scheme.
(B) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
tribal law enforcement officer exercising law
enforcement authority within Indian country, as that
term is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code, is not considered to be racial profiling
with respect to making key jurisdictional
determinations that are necessarily tied to reliance on
actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or tribal
affiliation.
(7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The
term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities'' means
the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
(A) Interviews.
(B) Traffic stops.
(C) Pedestrian stops.
(D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
(E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the
persons, property, or possessions (including vehicles)
of individuals using any form of public or private
transportation, including motorists and pedestrians.
(F) Data collection and analysis, assessments, and
predicated investigations.
(G) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the
United States that are more extensive than those
customarily carried out.
(H) Immigration-related workplace investigations.
(I) Such other types of law enforcement encounters
compiled for or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
or the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
(8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request''
means all requests for information, except for those that--
(A) are immaterial to the investigation;
(B) would result in the unnecessary disclosure of
personal information; or
(C) would place a severe burden on the resources of
the law enforcement agency given its size.
PART I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
SEC. 311. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in
racial profiling.
SEC. 312. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by racial
profiling, may enforce this part in a civil action for declaratory or
injunctive relief, filed either in a State court of general
jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.
(b) Parties.--In any action brought under this part, relief may be
obtained against--
(1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement
agent who engaged in racial profiling;
(2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling;
and
(3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous
investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction
have had a disparate impact on individuals with a particular
characteristic described in section 302(6) shall constitute prima facie
evidence of a violation of this part.
(d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to enforce this
part against any governmental body, the court may allow a prevailing
plaintiff, other than the United States, reasonable attorney's fees as
part of the costs, and may include expert fees as part of the
attorney's fee. The term ``prevailing plaintiff'' means a plaintiff
that substantially prevails pursuant to a judicial or administrative
judgment or order, or an enforceable written agreement.
PART II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 321. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in subsection
(a)(1) shall include--
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal
law enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the regulations
issued by the Attorney General under section 341;
(4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law
enforcement agents; and
(5) any other policies and procedures the Attorney General
determines to be necessary to eliminate racial profiling by
Federal law enforcement agencies.
PART III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 331. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--An application by a State or a unit of local
government for funding under a covered program shall include a
certification that such State, unit of local government, and any law
enforcement agency to which it will distribute funds--
(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) has eliminated any existing practices that permit or
encourage racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in subsection
(a)(1) shall include--
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law
enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the regulations
issued by the Attorney General under section 341; and
(4) participation in an administrative complaint procedure or
independent audit program that meets the requirements of
section 332.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 332. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders,
including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
and community, professional, research, and civil rights
organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations for
the operation of administrative complaint procedures and
independent audit programs to ensure that such procedures and
programs provide an appropriate response to allegations of
racial profiling by law enforcement agents or agencies.
(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1)
shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness,
effectiveness, and independence of the administrative complaint
procedures and independent auditor programs.
(b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that the
recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in compliance with
the requirements of section 331 or the regulations issued under
subsection (a), the Attorney General shall withhold, in whole or in
part (at the discretion of the Attorney General), funds for one or more
grants to the recipient under the covered program, until the recipient
establishes compliance.
(c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide notice and
an opportunity for private parties to present evidence to the Attorney
General that a recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in
compliance with the requirements of this part.
SEC. 333. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Technical Assistance Grants for Data Collection.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may, through
competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year
demonstration project for the purpose of developing and
implementing data collection programs on the hit rates for
stops and searches by law enforcement agencies. The data
collected shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, and religion.
(2) Number of grants.--The Attorney General shall provide not
more than 5 grants or contracts under this section.
(3) Eligible grantees.--Grants or contracts under this
section shall be awarded to law enforcement agencies that serve
communities where there is a significant concentration of
racial or ethnic minorities and that are not already collecting
data voluntarily.
(b) Required Activities.--Activities carried out with a grant under
this section shall include--
(1) developing a data collection tool and reporting the
compiled data to the Attorney General; and
(2) training of law enforcement personnel on data collection,
particularly for data collection on hit rates for stops and
searches.
(c) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into a contract with an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) to analyze the data
collected by each of the grantees funded under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out activities under this section--
(1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period, to carry out the
demonstration program under subsection (a); and
(2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation under subsection
(c).
SEC. 334. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10153(a)), as amended by sections 113 and 114, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(9) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 10 percent of
the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
develop and implement best practice devices and systems to
eliminate racial profiling in accordance with section 334 of
the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2020.''.
(b) Development of Best Practices.--Grant amounts described in
paragraph (9) of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by
subsection (a) of this section, shall be for programs that include the
following:
(1) The development and implementation of training to prevent
racial profiling and to encourage more respectful interaction
with the public.
(2) The acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the
accurate collection and analysis of data.
(3) The development and acquisition of feedback systems and
technologies that identify law enforcement agents or units of
agents engaged in, or at risk of engaging in, racial profiling
or other misconduct.
(4) The establishment and maintenance of an administrative
complaint procedure or independent auditor program.
SEC. 335. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such
sums as are necessary to carry out this part.
PART IV--DATA COLLECTION
SEC. 341. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.
(a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders,
including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and
community, professional, research, and civil rights organizations,
shall issue regulations for the collection and compilation of data
under sections 321 and 331.
(b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) provide for the collection of data on all routine and
spontaneous investigatory activities;
(2) provide that the data collected shall--
(A) be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, disability, and religion;
(B) include the date, time, and location of such
investigatory activities;
(C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis
of whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in
racial profiling; and
(D) not include personally identifiable information;
(3) provide that a standardized form shall be made available
to law enforcement agencies for the submission of collected
data to the Department of Justice;
(4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile data
on the standardized form made available under paragraph (3),
and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics;
(5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain all
data collected under this subtitle for not less than 4 years;
(6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks,
consistent with best practices, against which collected data
shall be measured;
(7) provide that the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics shall--
(A) analyze the data for any statistically
significant disparities, including--
(i) disparities in the percentage of drivers
or pedestrians stopped relative to the
proportion of the population passing through
the neighborhood;
(ii) disparities in the hit rate; and
(iii) disparities in the frequency of
searches performed on racial or ethnic minority
drivers and the frequency of searches performed
on nonminority drivers; and
(B) not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter--
(i) prepare a report regarding the findings
of the analysis conducted under subparagraph
(A);
(ii) provide such report to Congress; and
(iii) make such report available to the
public, including on a website of the
Department of Justice, and in accordance with
accessibility standards under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.); and
(8) protect the privacy of individuals whose data is
collected by--
(A) limiting the use of the data collected under this
subtitle to the purposes set forth in this subtitle;
(B) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle,
limiting access to the data collected under this
subtitle to those Federal, State, or local employees or
agents who require such access in order to fulfill the
purposes for the data set forth in this subtitle;
(C) requiring contractors or other nongovernmental
agents who are permitted access to the data collected
under this subtitle to sign use agreements
incorporating the use and disclosure restrictions set
forth in subparagraph (A); and
(D) requiring the maintenance of adequate security
measures to prevent unauthorized access to the data
collected under this subtitle.
SEC. 342. PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of
Justice shall provide to Congress and make available to the public,
together with each annual report described in section 341, the data
collected pursuant to this subtitle, excluding any personally
identifiable information described in section 343.
SEC. 343. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The name or identifying information of a law enforcement agent,
complainant, or any other individual involved in any activity for which
data is collected and compiled under this subtitle shall not be--
(1) released to the public;
(2) disclosed to any person, except for--
(A) such disclosures as are necessary to comply with
this subtitle;
(B) disclosures of information regarding a particular
person to that person; or
(C) disclosures pursuant to litigation; or
(3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of
Information Act), except for disclosures of information
regarding a particular person to that person.
PART V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 351. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.
(a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required under
sections 333 and 341, the Attorney General shall issue such other
regulations as the Attorney General determines are necessary to
implement this subtitle.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling
by law enforcement agencies.
(2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a summary of data collected under sections
321(b)(3) and 331(b)(3) and from any other reliable
source of information regarding racial profiling in the
United States;
(B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent
report prepared by the Department of Justice Bureau of
Justice Statistics under section 341(b)(7);
(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement
agencies under section 321 and by the State and local
law enforcement agencies under sections 331 and 332;
and
(D) a description of any other policies and
procedures that the Attorney General believes would
facilitate the elimination of racial profiling.
Subtitle B--Additional Reforms
SEC. 361. TRAINING ON RACIAL BIAS AND DUTY TO INTERVENE.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish--
(1) a training program for law enforcement officers to cover
racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice; and
(2) a clear duty for Federal law enforcement officers to
intervene in cases where another law enforcement officer is
using excessive force against a civilian, and establish a
training program that covers the duty to intervene.
(b) Mandatory Training for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--The
head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall require each Federal
law enforcement officer employed by the agency to complete the training
programs established under subsection (a).
(c) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first
fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not
receive funds under the Byrne grant program for a fiscal year if, on
the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of
local government does not require each law enforcement officer in the
State or unit of local government to complete the training programs
established under subsection (a).
(d) Grants To Train Law Enforcement Officers on Use of Force.--
Section 501(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(I) Training programs for law enforcement officers,
including training programs on use of force and a duty
to intervene.''.
SEC. 362. BAN ON NO-KNOCK WARRANTS IN DRUG CASES.
(a) Ban on Federal Warrants in Drug Cases.--Section 509 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 879) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``A search warrant authorized under this section
shall require that a law enforcement officer execute the search warrant
only after providing notice of his or her authority and purpose.''.
(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first
fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not
receive funds under the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on the
day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local
government does not have in effect a law that prohibits the issuance of
a no-knock warrant in a drug case.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``no-knock warrant'' means
a warrant that allows a law enforcement officer to enter a property
without requiring the law enforcement officer to announce the presence
of the law enforcement officer or the intention of the law enforcement
officer to enter the property.
SEC. 363. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS AND CAROTID HOLDS.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``chokehold or carotid
hold'' means the application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe,
the use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain,
or carotid artery restraints that prevent or hinder breathing or reduce
intake of air of an individual.
(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first
fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not
receive funds under the Byrne grant program or the COPS grant program
for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal
year, the State or unit of local government does not have in effect a
law that prohibits law enforcement officers in the State or unit of
local government from using a chokehold or carotid hold.
(c) Chokeholds as Civil Rights Violations.--
(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the ``Eric
Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act''.
(2) Chokeholds as civil rights violations.--Section 242 of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101, is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``For the purposes
of this section, the application of any pressure to the throat
or windpipe, use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen
flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints which prevent
or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is a punishment,
pain, or penalty.''.
SEC. 364. PEACE ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Police
Exercising Absolute Care With Everyone Act of 2020'' or the ``PEACE Act
of 2020''.
(b) Use of Force by Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Deescalation tactics and techniques.--The term
``deescalation tactics and techniques'' means proactive
actions and approaches used by a Federal law
enforcement officer to stabilize the situation so that
more time, options, and resources are available to gain
a person's voluntary compliance and reduce or eliminate
the need to use force, including verbal persuasion,
warnings, tactical techniques, slowing down the pace of
an incident, waiting out a subject, creating distance
between the officer and the threat, and requesting
additional resources to resolve the incident.
(B) Necessary.--The term ``necessary'' means that
another reasonable Federal law enforcement officer
would objectively conclude, under the totality of the
circumstances, that there was no reasonable alternative
to the use of force.
(C) Reasonable alternatives.--
(i) In general.--The term ``reasonable
alternatives'' means tactics and methods used
by a Federal law enforcement officer to
effectuate an arrest that do not unreasonably
increase the risk posed to the law enforcement
officer or another person, including verbal
communication, distance, warnings, deescalation
tactics and techniques, tactical repositioning,
and other tactics and techniques intended to
stabilize the situation and reduce the
immediacy of the risk so that more time,
options, and resources can be called upon to
resolve the situation without the use of force.
(ii) Deadly force.--With respect to the use
of deadly force, the term ``reasonable
alternatives'' includes the use of less lethal
force.
(D) Totality of the circumstances.--The term
``totality of the circumstances'' means all credible
facts known to the Federal law enforcement officer
leading up to and at the time of the use of force,
including the actions of the person against whom the
Federal law enforcement officer uses such force and the
actions of the Federal law enforcement officer.
(2) Prohibition on less lethal force.--A Federal law
enforcement officer may not use any less lethal force unless--
(A) the form of less lethal force used is necessary
and proportional in order to effectuate an arrest of a
person who the officer has probable cause to believe
has committed a criminal offense; and
(B) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of
less lethal force have been exhausted.
(3) Prohibition on deadly use of force.--A Federal law
enforcement officer may not use deadly force against a person
unless--
(A) the form of deadly force used is necessary, as a
last resort, to prevent imminent and serious bodily
injury or death to the officer or another person;
(B) the use of the form of deadly force creates no
substantial risk of injury to a third person; and
(C) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of
deadly force have been exhausted.
(4) Requirement to give verbal warning.--When feasible, prior
to using force against a person, a Federal law enforcement
officer shall identify himself or herself as a Federal law
enforcement officer, and issue a verbal warning to the person
that the Federal law enforcement officer seeks to apprehend,
which shall--
(A) include a request that the person surrender to
the law enforcement officer; and
(B) notify the person that the law enforcement
officer will use force against the person if the person
resists arrest or flees.
(5) Guidance on use of force.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in
consultation with impacted persons, communities, and
organizations, including representatives of civil and human
rights organizations, victims of police use of force, and
representatives of law enforcement associations, shall provide
guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies on--
(A) the types of less lethal force and deadly force
that are prohibited under paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(B) how a Federal law enforcement officer can--
(i) assess whether the use of force is
appropriate and necessary; and
(ii) use the least amount of force when
interacting with--
(I) pregnant individuals;
(II) children and youth under 21
years of age;
(III) elderly persons;
(IV) persons with mental, behavioral,
or physical disabilities or
impairments;
(V) persons experiencing perceptual
or cognitive impairments due to use of
alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, or
other drugs;
(VI) persons suffering from a serious
medical condition; and
(VII) persons with limited English
proficiency.
(6) Training.--The Attorney General shall provide training to
Federal law enforcement officers on interacting people
described in subclauses (I) through (VII) of paragraph
(5)(B)(ii).
(7) Limitation on justification defense.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law
enforcement officers
``(a) In General.--It is not a defense to an offense under section
1111 or 1112 that the use of less lethal force or deadly force by a
Federal law enforcement officer was justified if--
``(1) that officer's use of use of such force was
inconsistent with section 364(b) of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act of 2020; or
``(2) that officer's gross negligence, leading up to and at
the time of the use of force, contributed to the necessity of
the use of such force.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `deadly force' and `less lethal force' have
the meanings given such terms in section 2 and section 364 of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020; and
``(2) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the
meaning given such term in section 115.''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 1122
the following:
``1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement
officers.''.
(c) Limitation on the Receipt of Funds Under the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.--
(1) Limitation.--A State or unit of local government, other
than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds that the State or
unit of local government would otherwise receive under a Byrne
grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first
day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government
does not have in effect a law that is consistent with
subsection (b) of this section and section 1123 of title 18,
United States Code, as determined by the Attorney General.
(2) Subsequent enactment.--
(A) In general.--If funds described in paragraph (1)
are withheld from a State or unit of local government
pursuant to paragraph (1) for 1 or more fiscal years,
and the State or unit of local government enacts or
puts in place a law described in paragraph (1), and
demonstrates substantial efforts to enforce such law,
subject to subparagraph (B), the State or unit of local
government shall be eligible, in the fiscal year after
the fiscal year during which the State or unit of local
government demonstrates such substantial efforts, to
receive the total amount that the State or unit of
local government would have received during each fiscal
year for which funds were withheld.
(B) Limit on amount of prior year funds.--A State or
unit of local government may not receive funds under
subparagraph (A) in an amount that is more than the
amount withheld from the State or unit of local
government during the 5-fiscal-year period before the
fiscal year during which funds are received under
subparagraph (A).
(3) Guidance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with impacted persons, communities, and organizations,
including representatives of civil and human rights
organizations, individuals against whom a law enforcement
officer used force, and representatives of law enforcement
associations, shall make guidance available to States and units
of local government on the criteria that the Attorney General
will use in determining whether the State or unit of local
government has in place a law described in paragraph (1).
(4) Application.--This subsection shall apply to the first
fiscal year that begins after the date that is 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year
thereafter.
SEC. 365. STOP MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, the
Department of Defense is authorized to provide excess property
to local law enforcement agencies. The Defense Logistics
Agency, administers such section by operating the Law
Enforcement Support Office program.
(2) New and used material, including mine-resistant ambush-
protected vehicles and weapons determined by the Department of
Defense to be ``military grade'' are transferred to Federal,
Tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies through the
program.
(3) As a result local law enforcement agencies, including
police and sheriff's departments, are acquiring this material
for use in their normal operations.
(4) As a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military
equipment purchased for, and used in, those wars has become
excess property and has been made available for transfer to
local and Federal law enforcement agencies.
(5) In Fiscal Year 2017, $504,000,000 worth of property was
transferred to law enforcement agencies.
(6) More than $6,800,000,000 worth of weapons and equipment
have been transferred to police organizations in all 50 States
and four territories through the program.
(7) In May 2012, the Defense Logistics Agency instituted a
moratorium on weapons transfers through the program after
reports of missing equipment and inappropriate weapons
transfers.
(8) Though the moratorium was widely publicized, it was
lifted in October 2013 without adequate safeguards.
(9) On January 16, 2015, President Barack Obama issued
Executive Order 13688 to better coordinate and regulate the
federal transfer of military weapons and equipment to State,
local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies.
(10) In July, 2017, the Government Accountability Office
reported that the program's internal controls were inadequate
to prevent fraudulent applicants' access to the program.
(11) On August, 28, 2017, President Donald Trump rescinded
Executive Order 13688 despite a July 2017 Government
Accountability Office report finding deficiencies with the
administration of the 1033 program.
(12) As a result, Federal, State, and local law enforcement
departments across the country are eligible again to acquire
free ``military-grade'' weapons and equipment that could be
used inappropriately during policing efforts in which people
and taxpayers could be harmed.
(13) The Department of Defense categorizes equipment eligible
for transfer under the 1033 program as ``controlled'' and ``un-
controlled'' equipment. ``Controlled equipment'' includes
weapons, explosives such as flash-bang grenades, mine-resistant
ambush-protected vehicles, long-range acoustic devices,
aircraft capable of being modified to carry armament that are
combat coded, and silencers, among other military grade items.
(b) Limitation on Department of Defense Transfer of Personal Property
to Local Law Enforcement Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 2576a of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking
``counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border
security activities'' and inserting
``counterterrorism''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, the
Director of National Drug Control Policy,'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at
the end;
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period
and inserting a semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(7) the recipient submits to the Department of Defense a
description of how the recipient expects to use the property;
``(8) the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense
that if the recipient determines that the property is surplus
to the needs of the recipient, the recipient will return the
property to the Department of Defense;
``(9) with respect to a recipient that is not a Federal
agency, the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense
that the recipient notified the local community of the request
for personal property under this section by--
``(A) publishing a notice of such request on a
publicly accessible Internet website;
``(B) posting such notice at several prominent
locations in the jurisdiction of the recipient; and
``(C) ensuring that such notices were available to
the local community for a period of not less than 30
days; and
``(10) the recipient has received the approval of the city
council or other local governing body to acquire the personal
property sought under this section.'';
(C) by striking subsection (d);
(D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as
subsections (o) and (p), respectively; and
(E) by inserting after subsection (c) the following
new subsections:
``(d) Annual Certification Accounting for Transferred Property.--(1)
For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
certification in writing that each Federal or State agency to which the
Secretary has transferred property under this section--
``(A) has provided to the Secretary documentation accounting
for all controlled property, including arms and ammunition,
that the Secretary has transferred to the agency, including any
item described in subsection (f) so transferred before the date
of the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of
2020; and
``(B) with respect to a non-Federal agency, carried out each
of paragraphs (5) through (8) of subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary does not provide a certification under
paragraph (1) for a Federal or State agency, the Secretary may not
transfer additional property to that agency under this section.
``(e) Annual Report on Excess Property.--Before making any property
available for transfer under this section, the Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a description of the property to be transferred
together with a certification that the transfer of the property would
not violate this section or any other provision of law.
``(f) Limitations on Transfers.--(1) The Secretary may not transfer
to Federal, Tribal, State, or local law enforcement agencies the
following under this section:
``(A) Controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade
launchers, grenades (including stun and flash-bang),and
explosives.
``(B) Controlled vehicles, highly mobile multi-wheeled
vehicles, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, trucks,
truck dump, truck utility, and truck carryall.
``(C) Drones that are armored, weaponized, or both.
``(D) Controlled aircraft that--
``(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
``(ii) have no established commercial flight
application.
``(E) Silencers.
``(F) Long-range acoustic devices.
``(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned items.
``(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a transfer
under this section, that a Federal or State agency demonstrate the use
of any small arms or ammunition.
``(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also apply with
respect to the transfer of previously transferred property of the
Department of Defense from one Federal or State agency to another such
agency.
``(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph (1)
to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (other
than a mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle), if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver is necessary for disaster or rescue
purposes or for another purpose where life and public safety are at
risk, as demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
``(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall--
``(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post such
notice on a public Internet website of the Department, by not
later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is
issued; and
``(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the
recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued
provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer,
including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which it is
transferred, in the jurisdiction where the recipient is located
by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is
issued.
``(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the limitation
under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the case of parts for
aircraft described in such subparagraph that are transferred as part of
regular maintenance of aircraft in an existing fleet.
``(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any transfer of
property under this section, that the Federal or State agency that
receives the property shall return the property to the Secretary if the
agency--
``(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for any
violation of civil liberties; or
``(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread abuses
of civil liberties.
``(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
made available for any fiscal year may not be obligated or expended to
carry out this section unless the Secretary submits to Congress
certification that for the preceding fiscal year that--
``(1) each Federal or State agency that has received
controlled property transferred under this section has--
``(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability for all
such property, in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3),
as applicable; or
``(B) been suspended from the program pursuant to
paragraph (4);
``(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has
received controlled property under this section, the State
coordinator responsible for each such agency has verified that
the coordinator or an agent of the coordinator has conducted an
in-person inventory of the property transferred to the agency
and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for during
the inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the
program pursuant to paragraph (4);
``(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has received
controlled property under this section, the Secretary of
Defense or an agent of the Secretary has conducted an in-person
inventory of the property transferred to the agency and that
100 percent of such property was accounted for during the
inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the
program pursuant to paragraph (4);
``(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received
controlled property under this section for which 100 percent of
the property was not accounted for during an inventory
described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable, to receive
any property transferred under this section has been suspended;
and
``(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each non-
Federal agency located in the State for which the State
coordinator is responsible that--
``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements
under this section; or
``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive
property transferred under this section has been
suspended; and
``(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each
Federal agency that has received property under this section
that--
``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements
under this section; or
``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive
property transferred under this section has been
suspended.
``(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A Federal or
State agency that receives controlled property under this section may
not take ownership of the property.
``(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later than 30
days before downgrading the classification of any item of personal
property from controlled or Federal Supply Class, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress notice of the proposed downgrade.
``(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--Before the
Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient of property
transferred under this section to cannibalize the property, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of such authorization,
including the name of the recipient requesting the authorization, the
purpose of the proposed cannibalization, and the type of property
proposed to be cannibalized.
``(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--Not later
than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quarter, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on any uses of controlled property
transferred under this section during that fiscal quarter.
``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the last day
of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
the following for the preceding fiscal year:
``(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of
property transferred under this section, including specific
information about the type of property lost, the monetary value
of such property, and the recipient that lost the property.
``(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) property
transferred under this section, including specific information
about the type of property, the recipient of the property, the
monetary value of each item of the property, and the total
monetary value of all such property transferred during the
fiscal year.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to any transfer of property made after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 366. PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION GRANTS.
(a) Byrne Grants Used for Local Task Forces on Public Safety
Innovation.--Section 501(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151(a)), as amended by this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--
``(A) In general.--A law enforcement program under
paragraph (1)(A) may include the development of best
practices for and the creation of local task forces on
public safety innovation, charged with exploring and
developing new strategies for public safety, including
non-law enforcement strategies.
``(B) Definition.--The term `local task force on
public safety innovation' means an administrative
entity, created from partnerships between community-
based organizations and other local stakeholders, that
may develop innovative law enforcement and non-law
enforcement strategies to enhance just and equitable
public safety, repair breaches of trust between law
enforcement agencies and the community they pledge to
serve, and enhance accountability of law enforcement
officers.''.
(b) Crisis Intervention Teams.--Section 501(c) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(c))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded under
subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under this
subsection shall contain a report on best practices for crisis
intervention.''.
(c) Use of COPS Grant Program To Hire Law Enforcement Officers Who
Are Residents of the Communities They Serve.--Section 1701(b) of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10381(b)), as amended by this Act, is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (23) and (24) as paragraphs
(26) and (27), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (26), as so redesignated, by striking
``(22)'' and inserting ``(25)''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:
``(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop, and
train new, additional career law enforcement officers or
current law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate to
communities--
``(A) where there are poor or fragmented
relationships between police and residents of the
community, or where there are high incidents of crime;
and
``(B) that are the communities that the law
enforcement officers serve, or that are in close
proximity to the communities that the law enforcement
officers serve;
``(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement
officers who are willing to relocate to the communities where
they serve, and whether such law enforcement officer
relocations have impacted crime in such communities;
``(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and
timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train
a diverse and inclusive law enforcement workforce, consistent
with merit system principles and applicable law;''.
Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras
PART 1--FEDERAL POLICE CAMERA AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SEC. 371. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the ``Federal Police Camera and
Accountability Act''.
SEC. 372. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REGARDING
THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual under 18
years of age.
(2) Subject of the video footage.--The term ``subject of the
video footage''--
(A) means any identifiable Federal law enforcement
officer or any identifiable suspect, victim, detainee,
conversant, injured party, or other similarly situated
person who appears on the body camera recording; and
(B) does not include people who only incidentally
appear on the recording.
(3) Video footage.--The term ``video footage'' means any
images or audio recorded by a body camera.
(b) Requirement to Wear Body Camera.--
(1) In general.--Federal law enforcement officers shall wear
a body camera.
(2) Requirement for body camera.--A body camera required
under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) have a field of view at least as broad as the
officer's vision; and
(B) be worn in a manner that maximizes the camera's
ability to capture video footage of the officer's
activities.
(c) Requirement To Activate.--
(1) In general.--Both the video and audio recording functions
of the body camera shall be activated whenever a Federal law
enforcement officer is responding to a call for service or at
the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative
stop (as such term is defined in section 373) between a Federal
law enforcement officer and a member of the public, except that
when an immediate threat to the officer's life or safety makes
activating the camera impossible or dangerous, the officer
shall activate the camera at the first reasonable opportunity
to do so.
(2) Allowable deactivation.--The body camera shall not be
deactivated until the stop has fully concluded and the Federal
law enforcement officer leaves the scene.
(d) Notification of Subject of Recording.--A Federal law enforcement
officer who is wearing a body camera shall notify any subject of the
recording that he or she is being recorded by a body camera as close to
the inception of the stop as is reasonably possible.
(e) Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the following
shall apply to the use of a body camera:
(1) Prior to entering a private residence without a warrant
or in non-exigent circumstances, a Federal law enforcement
officer shall ask the occupant if the occupant wants the
officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the
occupant responds affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement
officer shall immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
(2) When interacting with an apparent crime victim, a Federal
law enforcement officer shall, as soon as practicable, ask the
apparent crime victim if the apparent crime victim wants the
officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the
apparent crime victim responds affirmatively, the Federal law
enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the
body camera.
(3) When interacting with a person seeking to anonymously
report a crime or assist in an ongoing law enforcement
investigation, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon
as practicable, ask the person seeking to remain anonymous, if
the person seeking to remain anonymous wants the officer to
discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the person
seeking to remain anonymous responds affirmatively, the Federal
law enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of
the body camera.
(f) Recording of Offers To Discontinue Use of Body Camera.--Each
offer of a Federal law enforcement officer to discontinue the use of a
body camera made pursuant to subsection (e), and the responses thereto,
shall be recorded by the body camera prior to discontinuing use of the
body camera.
(g) Limitations on Use of Body Camera.--Body cameras shall not be
used to gather intelligence information based on First Amendment
protected speech, associations, or religion, or to record activity that
is unrelated to a response to a call for service or a law enforcement
or investigative stop between a law enforcement officer and a member of
the public, and shall not be equipped with or employ any real time
facial recognition technologies.
(h) Exceptions.--Federal law enforcement officers--
(1) shall not be required to use body cameras during
investigative or enforcement stops with the public in the case
that--
(A) recording would risk the safety of a confidential
informant, citizen informant, or undercover officer;
(B) recording would pose a serious risk to national
security; or
(C) the officer is a military police officer, a
member of the United States Army Criminal Investigation
Command, or a protective detail assigned to a Federal
or foreign official while performing his or her duties;
and
(2) shall not activate a body camera while on the grounds of
any public, private or parochial elementary or secondary
school, except when responding to an imminent threat to life or
health.
(i) Retention of Footage.--
(1) In general.--Body camera video footage shall be retained
by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer whose
camera captured the footage, or an authorized agent thereof,
for 6 months after the date it was recorded, after which time
such footage shall be permanently deleted.
(2) Right to inspect.--During the 6-month retention period
described in paragraph (1), the following persons shall have
the right to inspect the body camera footage:
(A) Any person who is a subject of body camera video
footage, and their designated legal counsel.
(B) A parent or legal guardian of a minor subject of
body camera video footage, and their designated legal
counsel.
(C) The spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized
designee of a deceased subject of body camera video
footage, and their designated legal counsel.
(D) A Federal law enforcement officer whose body
camera recorded the video footage, and their designated
legal counsel, subject to the limitations and
restrictions in this part.
(E) The superior officer of a Federal law enforcement
officer whose body camera recorded the video footage,
subject to the limitations and restrictions in this
part.
(F) Any defense counsel who claims, pursuant to a
written affidavit, to have a reasonable basis for
believing a video may contain evidence that exculpates
a client.
(3) Limitation.--The right to inspect subject to subsection
(j)(1) shall not include the right to possess a copy of the
body camera video footage, unless the release of the body
camera footage is otherwise authorized by this part or by
another applicable law. When a body camera fails to capture
some or all of the audio or video of an incident due to
malfunction, displacement of camera, or any other cause, any
audio or video footage that is captured shall be treated the
same as any other body camera audio or video footage under this
part.
(j) Additional Retention Requirements.--Notwithstanding the retention
and deletion requirements in subsection (i), the following shall apply
to body camera video footage under this part:
(1) Body camera video footage shall be automatically retained
for not less than 3 years if the video footage captures an
interaction or event involving--
(A) any use of force; or
(B) an stop about which a complaint has been
registered by a subject of the video footage.
(2) Body camera video footage shall be retained for not less
than 3 years if a longer retention period is voluntarily
requested by--
(A) the Federal law enforcement officer whose body
camera recorded the video footage, if that officer
reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or
exculpatory value in an ongoing investigation;
(B) any Federal law enforcement officer who is a
subject of the video footage, if that officer
reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or
exculpatory value;
(C) any superior officer of a Federal law enforcement
officer whose body camera recorded the video footage or
who is a subject of the video footage, if that superior
officer reasonably asserts the video footage has
evidentiary or exculpatory value;
(D) any Federal law enforcement officer, if the video
footage is being retained solely and exclusively for
police training purposes;
(E) any member of the public who is a subject of the
video footage;
(F) any parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a
subject of the video footage; or
(G) a deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or
legally authorized designee.
(k) Public Review.--For purposes of subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G)
of subsection (j)(2), any member of the public who is a subject of
video footage, the parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a subject
of the video footage, or a deceased subject's next of kin or legally
authorized designee, shall be permitted to review the specific video
footage in question in order to make a determination as to whether they
will voluntarily request it be subjected to a minimum 3-year retention
period.
(l) Disclosure.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all
video footage of an interaction or event captured by a body
camera, if that interaction or event is identified with
reasonable specificity and requested by a member of the public,
shall be provided to the person or entity making the request in
accordance with the procedures for requesting and providing
government records set forth in the section 552a of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) Exceptions.--The following categories of video footage
shall not be released to the public in the absence of express
written permission from the non-law enforcement subjects of the
video footage:
(A) Video footage not subject to a minimum 3-year
retention period pursuant to subsection (j).
(B) Video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year
retention period solely and exclusively pursuant to
paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (j).
(3) Priority of requests.--Notwithstanding any time periods
established for acknowledging and responding to records
requests in section 552a of title 5, United States Code,
responses to requests for video footage that is subject to a
minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection
(j)(1)(A), where a subject of the video footage is recorded
being killed, shot by a firearm, or grievously injured, shall
be prioritized and, if approved, the requested video footage
shall be provided as expeditiously as possible, but in no
circumstances later than 5 days following receipt of the
request.
(4) Use of redaction technology.--
(A) In general.--Whenever doing so is necessary to
protect personal privacy, the right to a fair trial,
the identity of a confidential source or crime victim,
or the life or physical safety of any person appearing
in video footage, redaction technology may be used to
obscure the face and other personally identifying
characteristics of that person, including the tone of
the person's voice, provided the redaction does not
interfere with a viewer's ability to fully, completely,
and accurately comprehend the events captured on the
video footage.
(B) Requirements.--The following requirements shall
apply to redactions under subparagraph (A):
(i) When redaction is performed on video
footage pursuant to this paragraph, an
unedited, original version of the video footage
shall be retained pursuant to the requirements
of subsections (i) and (j).
(ii) Except pursuant to the rules for the
redaction of video footage set forth in this
subsection or where it is otherwise expressly
authorized by this Act, no other editing or
alteration of video footage, including a
reduction of the video footage's resolution,
shall be permitted.
(m) Prohibited Withholding of Footage.--Body camera video footage may
not be withheld from the public on the basis that it is an
investigatory record or was compiled for law enforcement purposes where
any person under investigation or whose conduct is under review is a
police officer or other law enforcement employee and the video footage
relates to that person's conduct in their official capacity.
(n) Admissibility.--Any video footage retained beyond 6 months solely
and exclusively pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(D) shall not be
admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil legal or administrative
proceeding.
(o) Confidentiality.--No government agency or official, or law
enforcement agency, officer, or official may publicly disclose,
release, or share body camera video footage unless--
(1) doing so is expressly authorized pursuant to this part or
another applicable law; or
(2) the video footage is subject to public release pursuant
to subsection (l), and not exempted from public release
pursuant to subsection (l)(1).
(p) Limitation on Federal Law Enforcement Officer Viewing of Body
Camera Footage.--No Federal law enforcement officer shall review or
receive an accounting of any body camera video footage that is subject
to a minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection (j)(1)
prior to completing any required initial reports, statements, and
interviews regarding the recorded event, unless doing so is necessary,
while in the field, to address an immediate threat to life or safety.
(q) Additional Limitations.--Video footage may not be--
(1) in the case of footage that is not subject to a minimum
3-year retention period, viewed by any superior officer of a
Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the
footage absent a specific allegation of misconduct; or
(2) divulged or used by any law enforcement agency for any
commercial or other non-law enforcement purpose.
(r) Third Party Maintenance of Footage.--Where a law enforcement
agency authorizes a third party to act as its agent in maintaining body
camera footage, the agent shall not be permitted to independently
access, view, or alter any video footage, except to delete videos as
required by law or agency retention policies.
(s) Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--If any Federal law enforcement officer, or
any employee or agent of a Federal law enforcement agency fails
to adhere to the recording or retention requirements contained
in this part, intentionally interferes with a body camera's
ability to accurately capture video footage, or otherwise
manipulates the video footage captured by a body camera during
or after its operation--
(A) appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken
against the individual officer, employee, or agent;
(B) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be
adopted in favor of a criminal defendant who reasonably
asserts that exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not
captured; and
(C) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be
adopted on behalf of a civil plaintiff suing the
Government, a Federal law enforcement agency, or a
Federal law enforcement officer for damages based on
misconduct who reasonably asserts that evidence
supporting their claim was destroyed or not captured.
(2) Proof compliance was impossible.--The disciplinary action
requirement and rebuttable presumptions described in paragraph
(1) may be overcome by contrary evidence or proof of exigent
circumstances that made compliance impossible.
(t) Use of Force Investigations.--In the case that a Federal law
enforcement officer equipped with a body camera is involved in, a
witness to, or within viewable sight range of either the use of force
by another law enforcement officer that results in a death, the use of
force by another law enforcement officer, during which the discharge of
a firearm results in an injury, or the conduct of another law
enforcement officer that becomes the subject of a criminal
investigation--
(1) the law enforcement agency that employs the law
enforcement officer, or the agency or department conducting the
related criminal investigation, as appropriate, shall promptly
take possession of the body camera, and shall maintain such
camera, and any data on such camera, in accordance with the
applicable rules governing the preservation of evidence;
(2) a copy of the data on such body camera shall be made in
accordance with prevailing forensic standards for data
collection and reproduction; and
(3) such copied data shall be made available to the public in
accordance with subsection (l).
(u) Limitation on Use of Footage as Evidence.--Any body camera video
footage recorded by a Federal law enforcement officer that violates
this part or any other applicable law may not be offered as evidence by
any government entity, agency, department, prosecutorial office, or any
other subdivision thereof in any criminal or civil action or proceeding
against any member of the public.
(v) Publication of Agency Policies.--Any Federal law enforcement
agency policy or other guidance regarding body cameras, their use, or
the video footage therefrom that is adopted by a Federal agency or
department, shall be made publicly available on that agency's website.
(w) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this part shall be construed to
preempt any laws governing the maintenance, production, and destruction
of evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
SEC. 373. PATROL VEHICLES WITH IN-CAR VIDEO RECORDING CAMERAS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Audio recording.--The term ``audio recording'' means the
recorded conversation between a Federal law enforcement officer
and a second party.
(2) Emergency lights.--The term ``emergency lights'' means
oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights on patrol vehicles.
(3) Enforcement or investigative stop.--The term
``enforcement or investigative stop'' means an action by a
Federal law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement and
investigation duties, including traffic stops, pedestrian
stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, commercial
motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, requests for
identification, or responses to requests for emergency
assistance.
(4) In-car video camera.--The term ``in-car video camera''
means a video camera located in a patrol vehicle.
(5) In-car video camera recording equipment.--The term ``in-
car video camera recording equipment'' means a video camera
recording system located in a patrol vehicle consisting of a
camera assembly, recording mechanism, and an in-car video
recording medium.
(6) Recording.--The term ``recording'' means the process of
capturing data or information stored on a recording medium as
required under this section.
(7) Recording medium.--The term ``recording medium'' means
any recording medium for the retention and playback of recorded
audio and video including VHS, DVD, hard drive, solid state,
digital, or flash memory technology.
(8) Wireless microphone.--The term ``wireless microphone''
means a device worn by a Federal law enforcement officer or any
other equipment used to record conversations between the
officer and a second party and transmitted to the recording
equipment.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Each Federal law enforcement agency shall
install in-car video camera recording equipment in all patrol
vehicles with a recording medium capable of recording for a
period of 10 hours or more and capable of making audio
recordings with the assistance of a wireless microphone.
(2) Recording equipment requirements.--In-car video camera
recording equipment with a recording medium capable of
recording for a period of 10 hours or more shall record
activities--
(A) whenever a patrol vehicle is assigned to patrol
duty;
(B) outside a patrol vehicle whenever--
(i) a Federal law enforcement officer
assigned that patrol vehicle is conducting an
enforcement or investigative stop;
(ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are
activated or would otherwise be activated if
not for the need to conceal the presence of law
enforcement; or
(iii) an officer reasonably believes
recording may assist with prosecution, enhance
safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and
(C) inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee
or when an officer reasonably believes recording may
assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any
other lawful purpose.
(3) Requirements for recording.--
(A) In general.--A Federal law enforcement officer
shall begin recording for an enforcement or
investigative stop when the officer determines an
enforcement stop is necessary and shall continue until
the enforcement action has been completed and the
subject of the enforcement or investigative stop or the
officer has left the scene.
(B) Activation with lights.--A Federal law
enforcement officer shall begin recording when patrol
vehicle emergency lights are activated or when they
would otherwise be activated if not for the need to
conceal the presence of law enforcement, and shall
continue until the reason for the activation ceases to
exist, regardless of whether the emergency lights are
no longer activated.
(C) Permissible recording.--A Federal law enforcement
officer may begin recording if the officer reasonably
believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance
safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and shall
continue until the reason for recording ceases to
exist.
(4) Enforcement or investigative stops.--A Federal law
enforcement officer shall record any enforcement or
investigative stop. Audio recording shall terminate upon
release of the violator and prior to initiating a separate
criminal investigation.
(c) Retention of Recordings.--Recordings made on in-car video camera
recording medium shall be retained for a storage period of at least 90
days. Under no circumstances shall any recording made on in-car video
camera recording medium be altered or erased prior to the expiration of
the designated storage period. Upon completion of the storage period,
the recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational use
unless otherwise ordered or if designated for evidentiary or training
purposes.
(d) Accessibility of Recordings.--Audio or video recordings made
pursuant to this section shall be available under the applicable
provisions of section 552a of title 5, United States Code. Only
recorded portions of the audio recording or video recording medium
applicable to the request will be available for inspection or copying.
(e) Maintenance Required.--The agency shall ensure proper care and
maintenance of in-car video camera recording equipment and recording
medium. An officer operating a patrol vehicle must immediately document
and notify the appropriate person of any technical difficulties,
failures, or problems with the in-car video camera recording equipment
or recording medium. Upon receiving notice, every reasonable effort
shall be made to correct and repair any of the in-car video camera
recording equipment or recording medium and determine if it is in the
public interest to permit the use of the patrol vehicle.
SEC. 374. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
No camera or recording device authorized or required to be used under
this part may be equipped with or employ real time facial recognition
technology, and footage from such a camera or recording device may not
be subjected to facial recognition technology.
SEC. 375. GAO STUDY.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on
Federal law enforcement officer training, vehicle pursuits, use of
force, and interaction with citizens, and submit a report on such study
to--
(1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
SEC. 376. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General shall issue such final regulations as are
necessary to carry out this part.
SEC. 377. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to impose any requirement on
a Federal law enforcement officer outside of the course of carrying out
that officer's duty.
PART 2--POLICE CAMERA ACT
SEC. 381. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the ``Police Creating Accountability by
Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2020'' or the ``Police
CAMERA Act of 2020''.
SEC. 382. LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERA REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10153(a)), as amended by section 334, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(10) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of
the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
develop policies and protocols in compliance with part OO.''.
(b) Requirements.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``PART OO--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND RECORDED DATA
``SEC. 3051. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (10) of
section 502(a) of this title--
``(1) shall be used--
``(A) to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use
by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers
(as defined in section 2503);
``(B) for expenses related to the implementation of a
body-worn camera program in order to deter excessive
force, improve accountability and transparency of use
of force by law enforcement officers, assist in
responding to complaints against law enforcement
officers, and improve evidence collection; and
``(C) to implement policies or procedures to comply
with the requirements described in subsection (b); and
``(2) may not be used for expenses related to facial
recognition technology.
``(b) Requirements.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E
of this title shall--
``(1) establish policies and procedures in accordance with
the requirements described in subsection (c) before law
enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
``(2) adopt recorded data collection and retention protocols
as described in subsection (d) before law enforcement officers
use of body-worn cameras;
``(3) make the policies and protocols described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) available to the public; and
``(4) comply with the requirements for use of recorded data
under subsection (f).
``(c) Required Policies and Procedures.--A recipient of a grant under
subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--
``(1) develop with community input and publish for public
view policies and protocols for--
``(A) the safe and effective use of body-worn
cameras;
``(B) the secure storage, handling, and destruction
of recorded data collected by body-worn cameras;
``(C) protecting the privacy rights of any individual
who may be recorded by a body-worn camera;
``(D) the release of any recorded data collected by a
body-worn camera in accordance with the open records
laws, if any, of the State; and
``(E) making recorded data available to prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and other officers of the court in
accordance with subparagraph (E); and
``(2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the
storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.
``(d) Recorded Data Collection and Retention Protocol.--The recorded
data collection and retention protocol described in this paragraph is a
protocol that--
``(1) requires--
``(A) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a
body-worn camera to provide an explanation if an
activity that is required to be recorded by the body-
worn camera is not recorded;
``(B) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a
body-worn camera to obtain consent to be recorded from
a crime victim or witness before interviewing the
victim or witness;
``(C) the collection of recorded data unrelated to a
legitimate law enforcement purpose be minimized to the
greatest extent practicable;
``(D) the system used to store recorded data
collected by body-worn cameras to log all viewing,
modification, or deletion of stored recorded data and
to prevent, to the greatest extent practicable, the
unauthorized access or disclosure of stored recorded
data;
``(E) any law enforcement officer be prohibited from
accessing the stored data without an authorized
purpose; and
``(F) the law enforcement agency to collect and
report statistical data on--
``(i) incidences of use of force,
disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and
age of the victim;
``(ii) the number of complaints filed against
law enforcement officers;
``(iii) the disposition of complaints filed
against law enforcement officers;
``(iv) the number of times camera footage is
used for evidence collection in investigations
of crimes; and
``(v) any other additional statistical data
that the Director determines should be
collected and reported;
``(2) allows an individual to file a complaint with a law
enforcement agency relating to the improper use of body-worn
cameras; and
``(3) complies with any other requirements established by the
Director.
``(e) Reporting.--Statistical data required to be collected under
subsection (d)(1)(D) shall be reported to the Director, who shall--
``(1) establish a standardized reporting system for
statistical data collected under this program; and
``(2) establish a national database of statistical data
recorded under this program.
``(f) Use or Transfer of Recorded Data.--
``(1) In general.--Recorded data collected by an entity
receiving a grant under a grant under subpart 1 of part E of
this title from a body-worn camera shall be used only in
internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law
enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable suspicion
that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or for limited
training purposes. The Director shall establish rules to ensure
that the recorded data is used only for the purposes described
in this paragraph.
``(2) Prohibition on transfer.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), an entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of
part E of this title may not transfer any recorded data
collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to another law
enforcement or intelligence agency.
``(3) Exceptions.--
``(A) Criminal investigation.--An entity receiving a
grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title may
transfer recorded data collected by the entity from a
body-worn camera to another law enforcement agency or
intelligence agency for use in a criminal investigation
if the requesting law enforcement or intelligence
agency has reasonable suspicion that the requested data
contains evidence relating to the crime being
investigated.
``(B) Civil rights claims.--An entity receiving a
grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title may
transfer recorded data collected by the law enforcement
agency from a body-worn camera to another law
enforcement agency for use in an investigation of the
violation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States.
``(g) Audit and Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this part, the Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management shall perform an assessment of the
use of funds under this section and the policies and protocols
of the grantees.
``(2) Reports.--Not later than September 1 of each year,
beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this part,
each recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this
title shall submit to the Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management a report that--
``(A) describes the progress of the body-worn camera
program; and
``(B) contains recommendations on ways in which the
Federal Government, States, and units of local
government can further support the implementation of
the program.
``(3) Review.--The Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies and
protocols of the grantees and take such steps as the Director
of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management determines
necessary to ensure compliance with the program.
``SEC. 3052. BODY-WORN CAMERA TRAINING TOOLKIT.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and maintain a body-
worn camera training toolkit for law enforcement agencies, academia,
and other relevant entities to provide training and technical
assistance, including best practices for implementation, model policies
and procedures, and research materials.
``(b) Mechanism.--In establishing the toolkit required to under
subsection (a), the Director may consolidate research, practices,
templates, and tools that been developed by expert and law enforcement
agencies across the country.
``SEC. 3053. STUDY.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of the Police CAMERA Act of 2020, the Director shall conduct a study
on--
``(1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring
excessive force by law enforcement officers;
``(2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the accountability
and transparency of the use of force by law enforcement
officers;
``(3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to and
adjudications of complaints of excessive force;
``(4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the
safety of law enforcement officers on patrol;
``(5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on public
safety;
``(6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence collection
for criminal investigations;
``(7) issues relating to the secure storage and handling of
recorded data from the body-worn cameras;
``(8) issues relating to the privacy of individuals and
officers recorded on body-worn cameras;
``(9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of
individuals on whom facial recognition technology is used;
``(10) issues relating to limitations on the use of facial
recognition technology;
``(11) issues relating to the public's access to body-worn
camera footage;
``(12) the need for proper training of law enforcement
officers that use body-worn cameras;
``(13) best practices in the development of protocols for the
safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
``(14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found body-
worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of the agencies;
and
``(15) any other factors that the Director determines are
relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn cameras.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on which the
study required under subsection (a) is completed, the Director shall
submit to Congress a report on the study, which shall include any
policy recommendations that the Director considers appropriate.''.
TITLE IV--JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act''.
SEC. 402. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate
expression of racism in the United States following
Reconstruction.
(2) Lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United
States until the middle of the 20th century.
(3) Lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United
States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States.
(4) At least 4,742 people, predominantly African Americans,
were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and
1968.
(5) Ninety-nine percent of all perpetrators of lynching
escaped from punishment by State or local officials.
(6) Lynching prompted African Americans to form the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (referred to
in this section as the ``NAACP'') and prompted members of B'nai
B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League.
(7) Mr. Walter White, as a member of the NAACP and later as
the executive secretary of the NAACP from 1931 to 1955,
meticulously investigated lynchings in the United States and
worked tirelessly to end segregation and racialized terror.
(8) Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in
Congress during the first half of the 20th century.
(9) Between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress
to end lynching.
(10) Between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives
passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures.
(11) Protection against lynching was the minimum and most
basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered
but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated
requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of
Representatives to do so.
(12) The publication of ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching
Photography in America'' helped bring greater awareness and
proper recognition of the victims of lynching.
(13) Only by coming to terms with history can the United
States effectively champion human rights abroad.
(14) An apology offered in the spirit of true repentance
moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become
central to a new understanding, on which improved racial
relations can be forged.
(15) Having concluded that a reckoning with our own history
is the only way the country can effectively champion human
rights abroad, 90 Members of the United States Senate agreed to
Senate Resolution 39, 109th Congress, on June 13, 2005, to
apologize to the victims of lynching and the descendants of
those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-
lynching legislation.
(16) The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which
opened to the public in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 26, 2018,
is the Nation's first memorial dedicated to the legacy of
enslaved Black people, people terrorized by lynching, African
Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim Crow, and
people of color burdened with contemporary presumptions of
guilt and police violence.
(17) Notwithstanding the Senate's apology and the heightened
awareness and education about the Nation's legacy with
lynching, it is wholly necessary and appropriate for the
Congress to enact legislation, after 100 years of unsuccessful
legislative efforts, finally to make lynching a Federal crime.
(18) Further, it is the sense of Congress that criminal
action by a group increases the likelihood that the criminal
object of that group will be successfully attained and
decreases the probability that the individuals involved will
depart from their path of criminality. Therefore, it is
appropriate to specify criminal penalties for the crime of
lynching, or any attempt or conspiracy to commit lynching.
(19) The United States Senate agreed to unanimously Senate
Resolution 118, 115th Congress, on April 5, 2017,
``[c]ondemning hate crime and any other form of racism,
religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to
violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States''
and taking notice specifically of Federal Bureau of
Investigation statistics demonstrating that ``among single-bias
hate crime incidents in the United States, 59.2 percent of
victims were targeted due to racial, ethnic, or ancestral bias,
and among those victims, 52.2 percent were victims of crimes
motivated by the offenders' anti-Black or anti-African American
bias''.
(20) On September 14, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed
into law Senate Joint Resolution 49 (Public Law 115-58; 131
Stat. 1149), wherein Congress ``condemn[ed] the racist violence
and domestic terrorist attack that took place between August 11
and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia'' and
``urg[ed] the President and his administration to speak out
against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia,
anti-Semitism, and White supremacy; and use all resources
available to the President and the President's Cabinet to
address the growing prevalence of those hate groups in the
United States''.
(21) Senate Joint Resolution 49 (Public Law 115-58; 131 Stat.
1149) specifically took notice of ``hundreds of torch-bearing
White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis
[who] chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans
and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around
the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville''
and that these groups ``reportedly are organizing similar
events in other cities in the United States and communities
everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of
hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups''.
(22) Lynching was a pernicious and pervasive tool that was
used to interfere with multiple aspects of life--including the
exercise of federally protected rights, as enumerated in
section 245 of title 18, United States Code, housing rights, as
enumerated in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3631), and the free exercise of religion, as enumerated
in section 247 of title 18, United States Code. Interference
with these rights was often effectuated by multiple offenders
and groups, rather than isolated individuals. Therefore,
prohibiting conspiracies to violate each of these rights
recognizes the history of lynching in the United States and
serves to prohibit its use in the future.
SEC. 403. LYNCHING.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 250. Lynching
``Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247,
or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed
violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of
imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the
person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 249 the following:
``250. Lynching.''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision
to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act and the application of the remaining provisions
of this Act to any person or circumstance shall not be affected
thereby.
SEC. 502. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit legal or administrative remedies under section
1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C.
1983), section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.), or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.);
(2) to affect any Federal, State, or Tribal law that applies
to an Indian Tribe because of the political status of the
Tribe; or
(3) to waive the sovereign immunity of an Indian Tribe
without the consent of the Tribe.
Purpose and Summary
On June 10, 2020, George Floyd's brother, Philonise, told
the Committee of the pain he felt watching the video of his
brother being killed by a Minneapolis police officer. He gave
voice to the pain that much of the Nation has felt over the
last few weeks. He also spoke to the anger of knowing that
George Floyd was only the latest in a much-too-long list of
victims of police brutality--disproportionately people of
color. He spoke to the frustration that, time and again, in the
face of overwhelming evidence that dramatic reform is urgently
needed, Congress has done very little. Mr. Floyd charged
Congress with making sure that his brother's death would not be
in vain, and he pleaded with Members of the Committee to turn
this pain and anger into meaningful change. His words echoed
the voices of millions of Americans who have taken to the
streets in the last few weeks to demand justice--and to demand
action. In advancing H.R. 7120, the ``George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act of 2020,'' the most significant policing reform
legislation in our Nation's history, the Committee now answers
their call.
In response to the American people's demand that Congress
pass meaningful policing reform legislation, H.R. 7120 contains
numerous policing reform measures that, if enacted, will
enhance public safety, ensure police accountability, and repair
frayed police-community relations. Among other things, the bill
includes provisions that:
revise the mens rea requirement in 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 242 so that a defendant can be held criminally
liable for acting knowingly or recklessly to deprive a
person of his or her federal rights;
eliminate qualified immunity for federal,
state, and local law enforcement officers in civil
actions for violations of federal rights;
enhance the Department of Justice's
authority to pursue investigations of law enforcement
officers and agencies for engaging in a ``pattern or
practice'' of violations of federal rights by granting
it subpoena authority and further strengthen the
statute by creating a cause of action for state
attorneys general to pursue such ``pattern or
practice'' actions;
incentivize independent investigations of
police uses of deadly force;
create a national law enforcement misconduct
registry;
establish use of force data reporting
requirements;
prohibit racial and religious profiling by
law enforcement officers and mandate training on
racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling;
ban no-knock warrants in drug cases;
ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds;
limit the transfer of military-grade
equipment to state and local law enforcement;
require law enforcement officers to wear
body cameras, prohibit the use of facial recognition
technology by federal officers and the use of federal
funds by states for such technology;
establish a use-of-force standard for
federal law enforcement officers and condition grants
for state and local law enforcement agencies on
following the same standards, and;
create public safety innovation grants to
foster non-policing innovations that enhance public
safety.
In contrast to President Donald Trump's recent ``Safe
Policing for Safe Communities''' Executive Order, and the
Justice Act introduced by Senator Tim Scott, the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act of 2020 offers real and
transformational change, rather than a validation of an
unacceptable status quo. As we have repeatedly stated, we
remain ready, willing, and able to work with our Republican
colleagues or the Administration as this bill moves forward in
the legislative process. Unfortunately, at present, neither of
those measures offers us a path to bipartisan compromise that
serve the interests of the American people.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\As Chairman Nadler explained during the markup of H.R. 7120, the
bill was introduced on June 8, 2020 and, at the time, it was explained
to the Minority that the Majority had initiated the process by
developing comprehensive legislation with House and Senate colleagues
because of the importance of moving quickly given the urgency of the
moment the Nation was in. Since that time, the Minority was told that
if it wished to help develop the legislation, it needed to make clear
to the Majority what changes it wanted and whether those changes would
lead to the Minority's support for the bill. Chair Bass has reached out
to the Minority Leader and Senator Tim Scott and Majority staff reached
out to the Minority in the ten days prior to the markup. Moreover, the
Minority was permitted to invite three witnesses for the Committee's
hearing on this issue on June 10, 2020.
Rather than engage constructively with the Majority, the Minority
did not share a single amendment with the Majority before the markup or
otherwise accept the Majority's offers to discuss the bill's substance.
During the markup, Members of the Minority refused the Majority's offer
to review and work with them on specific amendments that the Majority
indicated it could support if there was the opportunity to review and
discuss before the bill's consideration on the House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An array of leading civil rights organizations, 15 big-city
mayors,\2\ members of the business community, and many others,
has indicated support for H.R. 7120, including the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, National Action Network, National Urban League,
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, the Center for American Progress, Demand
Progress, Everytown for Gun Safety, New Democrat Coalition, and
the United Negro College Fund.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Sylvester Turner (Houston, TX); Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles, CA);
Jacob Frey (Minneapolis, MN); Jenny A. Durkan (Seattle, WA); Ron
Nirenberg (San Antonio, TX); London Breed (San Francisco, CA); Michael
B. Hancock (Denver, CO); Steve Adler (Austin, TX); Libby Schaff
(Oakland, CA); Ted Wheeler (Portland, OR); Victoria Woodards (Tacoma,
WA); Satya Rhodes-Conway (Madison, WI); Regina Romero (Tucson, AZ);
John Cooper (Nashville, TN); and Rusty Bailey (Riverside, CA).
\3\The other organizations expressing support for H.R. 7120 are
Adobe, American Association for Justice, American Association of
Independent Music, Artists Rights Alliance, BBVA USA, Black Millennial
Convention, Black Music Action Coalition, Fund for Leadership, Equity,
Access and Diversity, Future of Music Coalition, International Black
Women's Public Policy Institute, ITI, Little Listeners of the
Carolinas, Music Artists' Coalition, National Advocacy Center of the
Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National African American Clergy Network,
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, National Association of
Blacks in Criminal Justice, National Organization of Black County
Officials, Inc., National Association of Black County Officials,
Recording Industry Association of America, Save a Girl, Save a World,
Songwriters of North America, The National Coalition on Black Civic
Participation, Third Way, Tougaloo College, Voice of the Experienced,
and the YWCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Need for the Legislation
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Link Between Race and Concerns About Use of Excessive Force by
Police
In the face of assertions that the Committee is moving too
quickly to advance H.R. 7120, it is well worth remembering the
fact that American society has already known for decades of the
strong connection between race and the use of excessive, often
lethal force by police and yet has failed to act sufficiently
in response despite official recommendations. Indeed, in a
hearing before the Committee just last week, many witnesses--
including those from the law enforcement community--reminded
the Committee in their testimony that law enforcement in the
United States has a long, ugly history of institutional racism,
discrimination, and brutality against African Americans and
other marginalized groups, a history that continues to shape
policing in America today.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020)
[hereinafter ``Policing Practices Hearing''] (written testimony of Art
Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department and President, Major
City Chiefs Association, at 3) [hereinafter ``Acevedo Testimony'']
(stating ``law enforcement's past contains institutional racism,
injustices, and brutality'' and that ``we must recognize that policing
has had a disparate impact on disenfranchised communities, especially
communities of color and poor communities), (written testimony of Paul
Butler, Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law
Center, at 2) [hereinafter ``Butler Testimony''] (``there has never,
not for one minute in American history, been peace between black people
and the police''), (written testimony of Ronald L. Davis, Chair,
Legislative Committee, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, at 4) [hereinafter ``Davis Testimony''] (stating ``most of
the systems that determine why we police, how we police, and where we
police were constructed in the 1940's, '50s, and '60s to enforce Jim
Crow and other discriminatory laws'' and that policing systems ``still
suffer from structural racism and institutional deficiencies . . .
[and] even good cops have bad outcomes, and bad and racist cops operate
with impunity), (written testimony of Phillip Atiba Goff, Co-Founder
and Chief Executive Officer, Center for Policing Equity, at 2, 3)
[hereinafter ``Goff Testimony''] (noting the ``festering wounds of
racial violence woven into our history of policing'' and stating that
what limited data is available shows that ``there is no doubt that
Black, Native, and Latinx people have more contact with law enforcement
than do White people'' and that ``neither crime nor poverty are
sufficient to explain racial disparities in use of force, and in some
limited geographic areas, it is not sufficient to explain racial
disparities in [police] stops'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than a half-century ago, in its report on the causes
of racial unrest in American cities during the 1960's, the
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as
the Kerner Commission, wrote (in the language of the time) in
assessing the causes of the unrest:
The police are not merely a ``spark'' factor. To some
Negroes police have come to symbolize white power, white racism
and white repression. And the fact is that many police do
reflect and express these white attitudes. The atmosphere of
hostility and cynicism is reinforced by a widespread belief
among Negroes in the existence of police brutality and in a
``double standard'' of justice and protection--one for Negroes
and one for whites.
The abrasive relationship between the police and the
minority communities has been a major--and explosive--source of
grievance, tension and disorder. The blame must be shared by
the total society.
The police are faced with demands for increased protection
and service in the ghetto. Yet the aggressive patrol practices
thought necessary to meet these demands themselves create
tension and hostility.
The resulting grievances have been further aggravated by
the lack of effective mechanisms for handling complaints
against the police. Special programs for bettering police-
community relations have been instituted, but these alone are
not enough. Police administrators, with the guidance of public
officials, and the support of the entire community, must take
vigorous action to improve law enforcement and to decrease the
potential for disorder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Report of the Nat'l Advisory Comm'n on Civil Disorders, at 10,
14-15 (1968) [hereinafter ``Kerner Commission Report''], available at
http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1947, a generation before the Kerner Commission issued
its report, a similar commission appointed by President Harry
Truman to study the state of civil rights in the United States
issued similar findings about the link between societal racism
against African Americans and police brutality in its report.
The report noted that ``There is evidence of lawless police
action against whites and Negroes alike, but the dominant
pattern is that of race prejudice . . . Negroes have been shot,
supposedly in self-defense, under circumstances indicating, at
best, unsatisfactory police work in the handling of criminals,
and, at worst, a callous willingness to kill.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\To Secure These Rights: The Report of the President's Commission
on Civil Rights, at 26 (1947) [hereinafter ``1947 Report''], available
at https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/to-secure-these-rights; see
also Adam Harris, Racism Won't Be Solved By Yet Another Blue-Ribbon
Commission, The Atlantic, June 4, 2020, available at https://
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/george-floyd-racism-
police-brutality/612565/ (quoting the 1947 commission report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, continued killings of unarmed African Americans by
police in recent years appear to have highlighted how little
progress has been made to address the problem of police
violence against racial minorities, and, more generally, of
tensions between police and minority communities, despite
decades of official findings identifying the problem. The
United States is currently in the sixth year of its most recent
national conversation around policing practices that was
sparked by several high-profile, fatal applications of force
against unarmed African Americans, a national discourse that
has been given renewed momentum by a series of such killings in
recent months.
On December 18, 2014, then-President Barack Obama issued
Executive Order 13684 authorizing a task force to study law
enforcement practices. The mission of the President's Task
Force on 21st Century Policing (the President's Task Force) was
to examine ways of fostering strong, collaborative
relationships between local law enforcement and the communities
they protect and to make recommendations so that policing
practices can promote effective crime reduction while building
public trust.\7\ The President's Task Force conducted seven
listening sessions in three cities, solicited oral and written
testimony from over 250 different witnesses and experts, and
issued its final report in May 2015 (The President's Task Force
Report). In the years that followed, a growing, bipartisan
consensus emerged on several policing and criminal justice
reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Off. of Cmty. Oriented Policing Serv., Dep't of Just., The
President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report 5 (2015)
[hereinafter ``The President's Task Force''], available at https://
cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the United States Commission on Civil Rights
(USCCR) examined the use of force within the context of modern
policing practices in light of the series of fatal encounters
between unarmed African Americans and police beginning in 2014.
It found that:
Accurate and comprehensive data regarding
police uses of force is generally not available to
police departments or the American public.
No comprehensive national database exists
that captures rates of police use of force.
The lack of data on use of force is
exacerbated by the absence of mandatory federal
reporting and standardized reporting guidelines.
The best available evidence reflects high
rates of use of force nationally, and increased
likelihood of police use of force against people of
color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, people
with mental health concerns, people with low incomes,
and those at the intersections of those groups.
Law enforcement officers lack training on
critical areas such as de-escalation techniques, anti-
bias mechanisms, and strategies for encounters with
individuals with physical and mental disabilities.
Law enforcement agencies lack: (a)
transparency about policies and practices in place
governing use of force and (b) accountability for
noncompliance with any existing use of force policies
and procedures.
Communities perceive that police use of
force is unchecked and unlawful based on: (a) repeated
and highly publicized fatal applications of force
against unarmed civilians, (b) the lack of accurate
data on use of force, and (c) the lack of transparency
and accountability regarding policies and practices
governing use of force.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\U.S. Comm'n on Civ. Rts., Police Use of Force: An Examination of
Modern Policing Practices 4 (2018) [hereinafter ``USCCR Report''],
available at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the foregoing entities made a series of recommendations
for policymakers, many of which are, in some form, reflected in
H.R. 7120. For example, among The President's Task Force's
recommendations were: (1) clear use of force policies that
include de-escalation training; (2) policies to prohibit racial
profiling; (3) independent investigations of officer-involved
shootings, uses of force, and in-custody deaths; (4) collection
and public availability of demographic data regarding police
interactions; and (5) the incentivization of the establishment
of public safety innovation programs to help improve police
relations with minority communities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 USCCR report also outlined a number of
recommendations, including: (1) a return by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to vigorous pursuit of cases against local police
departments for engaging in a ``pattern or practice'' of
unconstitutional conduct and use consent decrees in such cases
as necessary; (2) the creation of federal guidance supporting
development of effective training, policies, and internal
accountability measures that promote expanded strategies and
tactics that safeguard the lives of officers and citizens; (3)
training for officers regarding de-escalation techniques and
alternatives to use of force; (4) independent investigation and
prosecution of police use-of-force cases; and (5) aggregation
and public dissemination of data by police departments
regarding use of force, disaggregated by race, gender, and
disability status.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\USCCR Report at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going further back, the Kerner Commission had recommended,
among other things, that cities ``review police operations in
the ghetto to ensure proper conduct by police officers, and
eliminate abrasive practices''; ``establish fair and effective
mechanisms for the redress of grievances against the police'';
``develop and adopt policy guidelines to assist officers in
making critical decisions in areas where police conduct can
create tension''; ``develop and use innovative programs to
ensure widespread community support for law enforcement;'' and
``recruit more Negroes into the regular police force.''\11\ The
1947 Truman-appointed civil rights commission's report
recommended that ``police training programs . . . should be
instituted. They should be oriented so as to indoctrinate
officers with an awareness of civil rights problems. Proper
treatment by the police of those who are arrested and
incarcerated in local jails should be stressed.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Kerner Commission Report at 15.
\12\1947 Report at 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there has been some progress, police-community
relations remain fraught, particularly in light of more recent
incidents of police killings of unarmed African Americans. On
October 28, 2019, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order
13896, establishing a Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice, authorizing Attorney General William
Barr to select a commission of experts to study crime, its
causal factors, and current law enforcement practices.\13\
President Trump authorized the Commission to study criminal
justice issues, such as refusals by state and local prosecutors
to enforce laws or prosecute categories of crimes, as well as a
perceived disrespect for law enforcement. In remarks about the
Commission, Attorney General Barr pointedly lamented ``a
disturbing pattern of cynicism and disrespect shown toward law
enforcement.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The Barr Commission has been accused of lacking transparency.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed suit to challenge
the legality of the Commission and alleged that the Commission has
failed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. See NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., LDF
Files Lawsuit Challenging the President's Law Enforcement Commission,
Arguing that it Fails to Comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act
Requirements, April 30, 2020, available at https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-
content/uploads/FACA-Suit-Statement-FINAL.pdf.
\14\Dep't of Justice, Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers
Remarks at the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice Opening Ceremony, Jan. 22, 2020, available at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-
delivers-remarks-presidential-commission-law-enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2014, the annual rate of fatal police-involved
shootings nationwide has remained steady--averaging nearly 1000
per year.\15\ Meanwhile, in 2020, four more high profile
killings of unarmed African Americans under color of law have
reignited the public outrage that had been steadily building
for years. Protests in Minneapolis, MN and in cities nationwide
morphed for a time into physical expressions of rage and
despair, and many peaceful protests against police abuses
continue nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Julie Tate, Jennifer Jenkins & Steven Rich, Fatal Force, Wash.
Post, May 26, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Killings Since 2014 of African-Americans in Police Custody and
Movement for Police Accountability and Transparency
A series of deaths of unarmed African-American men while in
police custody accompanied by public unrest in Ferguson, MO and
Baltimore, MD, sparked a movement in the United States to
demand transparency and accountability when police use force
against civilians:
July 17, 2014: Eric Garner was choked to
death by police in New York, NY.
August 9, 2014: Michael Brown was shot to
death by police in Ferguson, MO.
August 9-25, 2014: Residents of Ferguson, MO
publicly protested the shooting of Michael Brown and
the protests escalated into a series of riots.
October 20, 2014: LaQuan McDonald was shot
to death by police in Chicago, IL.
November 22, 2014: Tamir Rice, aged 12, was
shot to death by police in Cleveland, OH.
April 5, 2015, Walter Scott was shot to
death by police in North Charleston, SC.
April 18, 2015 Freddie Gray died of a spinal
cord injury suffered while he was in police custody in
Baltimore, MD.
April 18-April 29, 2015: Baltimore residents
began non-violent protests; however the protests
escalated into violence.
July 5, 2016: Alton Sterling was shot by
Baton Rouge, LA, police and, while no officer was
criminally charged, one officer was fired.
July 7, 2016: Philando Castile was shot in
his car by a police officer outside St. Paul, MN; the
officer involved was tried and acquitted of second-
degree manslaughter.
September 16, 2016: Terence Crutcher was
shot by police outside his car in Tulsa, OK; the
officer involved was tried and acquitted of
manslaughter.
April 29, 2017: Jordan Edwards was shot by
police while sitting in the passenger seat of a car in
Balch Springs, TX; the officer involved was convicted
of murder.
The public outrage over these incidents, most of which were
captured on video, once again catapulted decades of mistrust
between police and marginalized communities into the national
political discourse. Initially inspired by the Black Lives
Matter movement, which was formed in response to the Stand Your
Ground laws utilized to justify the 2012 murders of two unarmed
African-American teenagers, Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis,
the public outcry over the extrajudicial killings of unarmed
civilians continued to grow as protests by professional
athletes in the National Football League and the National
Basketball Association, as well as comments from President
Obama supplemented grassroots calls for reform.
Amid the ongoing debate around policing practices since the
protests stemming from the killings of Michael Brown, Eric
Garner, Freddie Gray, and others, violent confrontations
between police and civilians continued. On March 18, 2018,
Sacramento Police fired 20 shots killing Stephon Clark, a 22-
year-old African American who had fled into his own backyard,
mistaking the cellphone he was holding for a gun. The shooting
was captured on video. The officers were not charged with any
criminal offenses, and a federal civil rights investigation
remains ongoing.
On June 19, 2018, unarmed African American teenager Antwon
Rose II, 17, was shot three times in the back, face, and elbow
while fleeing from East Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael
Rosefeld after a traffic stop.\16\ The shooting was captured on
video. On March 22, 2019, Rosefeld was acquitted of criminal
homicide for Rose's death.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Adeel Hassan, Antwon Rose Shooting: White Police Officer
Acquitted in Death of Black Teenager, N.Y. Times, Mar. 22, 2019,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/antwon-rose-
shooting.html.
\17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 26, 2019, a Baltimore County police officer
fatally shot Eric Sopp during a traffic stop after Sopp refused
to obey their commands to remain inside his vehicle. Baltimore
County prosecutors determined that the shooting was justified
because Sopp's erratic behavior placed the officer in a highly
dangerous situation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Tom Jackman, Baltimore County police officer cleared in killing
of unarmed, suicidal man, Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2020, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2020/03/02/baltimore-county-
police-officer-cleared-killing-unarmed-suicidal-man/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2020, Prince George's County Police Corporal
Michael Owen fired seven shots, killing William Green while
Green was handcuffed and seated in his car. Owen was charged
with voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, first-degree
assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of
violence and awaits trial.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Neil Vigdor, Mariel Padilla and Sandra E. Garcia, Police
Officer Charged With Murder in Killing of Handcuffed Suspect in
Maryland, N.Y. Times, Jan. 28, 2020, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/prince-georges-maryland-police-
shooting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 23, 2020, Travis and Gregory McMichael killed
Ahmaud Arbery while he was jogging, purportedly because they
suspected him of committing a burglary. The killing of Mr.
Arbery and its subsequent investigation are reminiscent of
early 20th century lynchings in the Jim Crow South. Gregory
McMichael was a former police officer and investigator with the
Glynn County Police Department and Brunswick Judicial Circuit,
the entities responsible for investigating the killing. The
killing was captured on video, yet law enforcement refused to
arrest the McMichaels for 74 days--until the video was leaked
to the public on May 7, 2020. Gregory McMichael's status as a
former law enforcement officer, in addition to his relationship
with prosecutors responsible for investigating Mr. Arbery's
killing, raise questions as to whether some combination of
racial bias, conflicts of interest, or gross negligence led to
Mr. Arbery's death and compromised the integrity of the
subsequent investigation.
In the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna
Taylor was shot eight times and killed by Louisville Metro
Police Department (LMPD) Criminal Interdiction Division
officers executing a ``no-knock'' search warrant on her
apartment during the early morning hours of March 13, 2020.
Apparently, the subject of the warrant was already in police
custody prior to LMPD officers arriving at Ms. Taylor's
apartment. Upon arrival, the officers, who were in plain
clothes, did not knock and did not identify themselves as
police.\20\ Ms. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, a licensed
gun owner, used his firearm to defend the home against what he
believed to be an attempted burglary.\21\ The officers fired a
hail of bullets into the apartment, over twenty rounds,
striking Ms. Taylor eight times and killing her.\22\ The
officers were not wearing body cameras.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Complaint at 7, Palmer v. Hankison, No. 20-CI-002694 (Jefferson
Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 2020).
\21\Id. at 3, 10.
\22\Id. at 9.
\23\Nick Picht, LMPD officers serving warrant at Breonna Taylor's
home were not wearing body cameras, WAVE 3 News, May 16, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed when Minneapolis
Police Department (MPD) officers applied an illegal chokehold
to his neck while he was handcuffed and pinned to the ground.
The killing, captured on video, is the latest in a string of
high profile and outrageous extrajudicial killings of African
Americans suspected of committing minor criminal violations and
is eerily reminiscent of the NYPD killing of Eric Garner. The
nine-minute video appears to show an officer kneeling on Mr.
Floyd's neck as he begs for help, stating repeatedly that he
could not breathe.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\FBI investigating after man dies in Minneapolis Police custody;
video shows him saying ``I can't breathe,'' KARE11, May 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPD officers claim that Mr. Floyd was resisting their
attempts to arrest him for forgery--a non-violent offense.\25\
Newly released video appears to contradict that claim.\26\ As
the officer applied the force of his full body weight on top of
Mr. Floyd with a knee to the neck, bystanders called for
officers to reduce the amount of force being applied.\27\
``He's not even resisting arrest right now, bro,'' one
bystander tells the officer and his partner.\28\ One bystander
observed that the officer was cutting off Mr. Floyd's air
supply: ``You're . . . stopping his breathing right now, you
think that's cool?''\29\ After about five minutes into the
video, Mr. Floyd appears to go unconscious.\30\ Police then
called an ambulance which took Mr. Floyd to the Hennepin County
Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\``Being Black in America Should Not Be A Death Sentence'':
Officials Respond to George Floyd's Death, WCCO CBS Minnesota, May 26,
2020.
\26\Dakin Andone, Surveillance video does not support police claims
that George Floyd resisted arrest, CNN, May 28, 2020.
\27\Id.
\28\Id.
\29\Id.
\30\WCCO CBS Minnesota.
\31\KARE11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Burden on Law Enforcement
As the spotlight on high-profile applications of fatal
force by police has intensified, some members of the law
enforcement profession have felt abused, disrespected, and
underappreciated given the personal sacrifices they make to
perform a dangerous job that often involves split-second life
or death decisions. The job of a patrol officer can be deadly.
In 2014, New York Police Department (NYPD) officers Wenjian Liu
and Raphael Ramos were shot and killed execution-style while
sitting in their patrol car. In 2016, 20 law enforcement
officers died in planned assaults carried out by gunmen--the
highest number in a least a decade-- including in high-profile
attacks against police in Dallas and Baton Rouge that occurred
ten days apart.\32\ And on February 9, 2020, NYPD Officer Paul
Stroffolino was ambushed while sitting in his marked unit and
shot in the head. Officer Stroffolino was expected to survive.
Hours later, Officer Stroffolino's assailant entered the 41st
Precinct in the Bronx and emptied the entire clip of a 9mm
handgun, striking a lieutenant in the upper left arm. The
assailant has been charged with several counts of attempted
murder and awaits trial. While planned attacks on officers are
relatively rare, officers must face the most dangerous
encounters as a matter of routine: traffic stops, serving
warrants, and responding to domestic violence calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Ann Givens, Ambush Shootings of Police Officers Reach Highest
Total in Decades, The Trace, Dec. 6, 2016, available at https://
www.thetrace.org/2016/12/ambush-shootings-police-officers-reaches-
highest-total-decades/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public scrutiny and violent attacks have led some to
believe that there is a ``war on cops'' and that in response,
police have begun to pull back in their enforcement duties--a
phenomenon labelled as ``the Ferguson effect.''\33\ Fewer
people are seeking careers in policing, as a majority of police
chiefs surveyed said hiring had become more difficult, with
two-thirds reporting difficulty finding nonwhite officers.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\See Mitch Smith, Policing: What Changed (and Didn't) Since
Michael Brown Died, N.Y. Times, Aug. 7, 2019, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/racism-ferguson.html.
\34\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
A. Post-Incident Accountability Measures
1. ``Pattern or Practice'' Enforcement Actions Under 34
U.S.C. Sec. 12601
H.R. 7120 makes it easier in several ways to more
effectively enforce 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601, which authorizes the
DOJ to pursue civil suits for equitable and declaratory relief
against individual officers or police departments to stop them
from engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving persons of
their constitutional or other federal rights.\35\ To prevail,
DOJ must prove that a law enforcement agency engaged in such
conduct by a preponderance of evidence. The pattern or practice
of excessive use of force has been found in the past to have
been one type of conduct prohibited by the statute.\36\ The DOJ
is currently the only government agency authorized to eliminate
unconstitutional patterns and practices under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\34 U.S.C.Sec. 12601 was previously codified as 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 14141.
\36\See, e.g., Dep't of Just., Investigation of the New Orleans
Police Department, Mar. 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using its Section 12601 authority, the DOJ had in years
past investigated a substantial number of police departments
around the country engaged in a variety of constitutional
violations. The Obama Administration, for example, launched 25
such investigations.\37\ Three factors typically triggered
federal investigations: (1) the development of a significant
body of complaints by stakeholder groups that create an
inference of a pattern of constitutional violations; (2)
voluntary requests by elected officials or agency management
for a review of agency practices and technical support to
improve policies and procedures; and (3) high visibility
episodes of police misconduct accompanied by substantial proof
such as a video recording.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of Vanita Gupta,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, at 2) [hereinafter ``Gupta Testimony''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOJ typically sought to enjoin patterns or practices of
unconstitutional conduct through judicially enforceable consent
decrees or court orders that required the local law enforcement
agency to end the misconduct at issue and change the policies
and procedures that led to the violations. Examples of required
policy changes included early intervention systems to monitor
and intervene with officers at risk of serious misconduct, or
more open administrative complaint procedures. Where violations
were widespread and substantial, a consent decree and
memorandum of agreement provided essential assurance that the
reform effort would be monitored and enforced.
Relief secured by DOJ pursuant to its Section 12601
authority can have broad and lasting effects that encourage
policing practices that reduce the risk of unconstitutional
police-civilian encounters and build trust between law
enforcement and the community. Section 12601 relief supports
that goal by articulating best practices and demonstrating how
to apply them while providing enforcement mechanisms which
incentivize reform.
Unfortunately, under the Trump Administration, the DOJ has
largely abdicated its responsibility to use its Section 12601
authority to address police abuses. As an early priority during
his tenure, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the DOJ's
policy of pursuing consent decrees to resolve policing
practices investigations. Within a month of his appointment,
Attorney General Sessions ordered a review of the use of
consent decrees to ensure that they advanced the safety and
protection of the public.\38\ He further asserted that consent
decrees ``reduce morale'' among police officers and had the
effect of increasing violent crime.\39\ These principles were
memorialized in a memorandum dated March 31, 2017 (the March
2017 Memo).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Sheryl Gay Stolberg & Eric Lichtblau, Sweeping Federal Review
Could Affect Consent Decrees Nationwide, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 2017,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/justice-department-
jeff-sessions-baltimore-police.html.
\39\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html.
\40\Memorandum for Heads of Department Components and United States
Attorneys, March 31, 2017, available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/
press-release/file/954916/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2017, the DOJ changed its position in a settlement
agreement it had entered into with the Baltimore Police
Department during the Obama Administration. It filed a document
in the district court seeking more time to ``assess whether and
how the provisions of the proposed consent decrees interact''
with the principles outlined in the March 2017 Memo.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\Motion for Continuance of Public Fairness Hearing, USA v.
Police Department of Baltimore City, No. 1:17-cv-00099-JKB, (D. Md.
Apr. 3, 2017), ECF No. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOJ continued its non-decree policy in two notable
investigations of Louisiana law enforcement agencies that were
engaging in systemic abuses of constitutional rights. In
December 2016, the Obama DOJ investigated the Ville Platte
Police Department and Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office in
Louisiana and found that the agencies routinely arrested and
detained individuals without probable cause.\42\ In June 2018,
the DOJ settled the cases out of court without a judicially
enforceable consent decree and without community input.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\Department of Justice Investigation of the Ville Platte Police
Department and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office, December 19,
2016.
\43\Ian MacDougall, How the Trump Administration Went Easy on
Small-Town Police Abuses, Pro Publica, Aug. 27, 2018, available at
https://www.propublica.org/article/ville-platte-louisiana-police-
consent-decree-trump-justice-department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2018, DOJ intervened in the State of Illinois'
lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department (CPD), opposing a
settlement even after the Obama Justice Department found
rampant use of excessive force aimed at black and Latino
individuals.\44\ Finally, in November 2018, just prior to his
resignation, Attorney General Sessions issued a second
memorandum (the November 2018 Memo) making it more difficult
for DOJ officials to obtain court-enforced agreements to stop
civil rights abuses by local police departments.\45\ The
November 2018 Memo imposed three stringent requirements that
will make it harder to negotiate and enforce consent decrees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html; see also United States' Statement of
Interest Opposing Proposed Consent Decree, Illinois v. Chicago, No. 17-
cv-06260 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2018), ECF No. 160.
\45\Memorandum for Heads of Civil Litigation Components, United
States Attorneys, Nov. 7, 2018, available at https://www.justice.gov/
opa/press-release/file/1109681/download; Christy E. Lopez, Here's Why
Jeff Session's Parting Shot is Worse Than You Thought, The Marshall
Project, Nov. 19, 2018, available at https://
www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/19/here-s-why-jeff-sessions-parting-
shot-is-worse-than-you-thought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ lawyers must now provide evidence of
violations beyond unconstitutional behavior;
Consent decrees must have an identified
sunset date, as opposed to being allowed to stay in
place until the unlawful practices are
remedied;Career DOJ lawyers can no longer
approve consent decrees; approval from top political
appointees is now required.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several witnesses raised concerns about the Trump
Administration's failure to use its authority under Section
12601 at the Committee's hearing on policing practices. Vanita
Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and the former
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights during the
Obama Administration, testified that the current Administration
had severely curtailed the DOJ's use of consent decrees to
address police civil rights abuse.\47\ Similarly, Sherrilyn
Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, testified that the ``Trump
Administration has abdicated its authority to investigate
police departments and instead has incited unlawful
policing.''\48\ Ronald Davis, Chair of the Legislative
Committee for the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), also proposed rescinding the
Session memo pertaining to consent decrees.\49\ The 2018 USCCR
report recommended, among other things, that the DOJ return to
vigorous pursuit of cases against local police departments for
engaging in a ``pattern or practice'' of unconstitutional
conduct and use consent decrees in such cases as necessary.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Gupta Testimony at 3.
\48\Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of Sherrilyn
Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, at 3) [hereinafter ``Ifill Testimony''].
\49\Davis Testimony at 8.
\50\USCCR Report at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7120 strengthens the investigatory and enforcement
mechanisms of Section 12601 in a number of ways. First, it
grants the DOJ the authority to issue subpoenas in ``pattern or
practice'' investigations of local law enforcement entities to
compel the production of relevant information or documents in
an investigation.\51\ Obtaining such materials is critical to
establishing the breadth of unconstitutional practices. Second,
to provide an additional means of enforcement, it creates a
cause of action allowing state attorneys general to pursue
``pattern or practice'' enforcement actions in federal court so
that authority to pursue such actions would no longer be
exclusively held by the DOJ.\52\ Third, it expressly affirms
the existing understanding and practice under Section 12601
that prosecutors are among those law enforcement officials
subject to the statute's prohibition on engaging in a ``pattern
or practice'' of conduct that deprives individuals of their
constitutional or civil rights.\53\ Finally, it authorizes
appropriations for additional expenses related to the
enforcement of Section 12601.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020
(116th Cong. 2020), Sec. 103(a)(3).
\52\Id.
\53\Id. For instance, the DOJ investigated the Missoula County (MT)
Attorney's Office for allegations of gender bias in its handling of
sexual assault cases. See Letter from Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Ass't
Attn'y General et al to Fred Van Valkenburg, County Attorney, Missoula
County, MT, Feb. 14, 2014 available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/crt/legacy/2014/02/19/missoula_ltr_2-14-14.pdf. See also
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Montana Attorney General, the
Missoula County Attorney's Office, Missoula County, and the Dep't of
Justice, available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/
legacy/2014/06/10/missoula_settle_6-10-14.pdf (outlining terms of
settlement ending DOJ ``pattern or practice'' investigation of Missoula
County Attorney's Office).
\54\Id. Sec. 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Federal Criminal Enforcement Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 242
H.R. 7120 also strengthens an important criminal
enforcement tool against police officers who violate a person's
constitutional or civil rights. Among the criminal enforcement
tools available to the DOJ to punish law enforcement officers
that apply improper or excessive amounts of force against
civilians is 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242. Section 242 prohibits the
willful deprivation of a person's federal civil or
constitutional rights while acting under the color of law.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\18 U.S.C. Sec. 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 242 is a specific intent crime.\56\ To sustain a
conviction, the Justice Department must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) acted under color of
law; (2) deprived an individual of a constitutional right; and
(3) acted willfully.\57\ To establish the third element, that a
defendant acted ``willfully,'' the government must demonstrate
that the defendant intended to commit an act that results in a
constitutional deprivation.\58\ In the excessive force context,
this means the government must prove that the defendant
intentionally applied an amount of force that he or she knew
was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.\59\ This
required showing of willful intent on the defendant's part
effectively makes prosecution of police officers who commit
civil rights violations through their use of excessive force
very difficult, if not impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 442 (7th Cir. 2019).
\57\The second element requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant deprived the victim of their right to be free from
excessive applications of force. The Supreme Court, in Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989), held that all applications of
force by government agents prior to or during arrest must be governed
by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits ``unreasonable searches and
seizures.'' The reasonableness of a particular application of force is
judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene in
light of the totality of facts and circumstances confronting them at
the moment force was applied.
\58\Proano at 442 (quoting United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d 762,
770 (7th Cir. 1999).
\59\Proano at 442-443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7120 addresses the concern that the required showing
of willfulness is too high a burden for prosecutors to meet by
modifying the required showing of intent under Section 242.
Under the bill, the government would only need to prove that an
officer acted ``knowingly or recklessly'' in depriving a person
of his or her constitutional rights.\60\ At the hearing before
the Committee, several witnesses, including Ronald Davis of
NOBLE and Ms. Gupta of LCCHR, testified in favor of this
change.\61\ In addition, the bill would eliminate the death
penalty from Section 242 and clarify that any act that was a
substantial factor contributing to death of a person is
considered an act resulting in death, subjecting the defendant
to the strongest penalties under the statute.\62\ Finally, the
bill authorizes appropriations for additional expenses related
to the enforcement of Section 242.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\H.R. 7120, Sec. 101(1).
\61\Davis Testimony at 6; Gupta Testimony at 6.
\62\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 101(2) & 101(3).
\63\Id. Sec. 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Civil Action for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
The civil counterpart to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242 is 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983, which authorizes a civil action against any ``person
who, under color of'' state law, ``subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of'' federal
rights.\64\ The law was first enacted during Reconstruction to
combat systematic violence and abuse against African
Americans.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. A more limited cause of action is
available against federal officers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
\65\See An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for Other
Purposes, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13 (1871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of Section 1983 contains no mention of official
``immunities'' or other defenses available to officers who are
sued. However, over the past several decades, the Supreme Court
has constructed a doctrine known as ``qualified immunity.''
Qualified immunity shields officers from liability ``unless
they have `violated a statutory or constitutional right that
was clearly established at the time of the challenged
conduct.'''\66\ Thus, courts can (and often do) hold that an
official's conduct violated the Constitution but that the
plaintiff is nonetheless barred from recovering damages. The
Supreme Court has described qualified immunity as an ``exacting
standard''\67\ that ``protects `all but the plainly incompetent
or those who knowingly violate the law.''' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\City and Cnty of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765,
1774 (2015) (quoting Plumhoff v. Pickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014))
(additional internal quotations omitted).
\67\Id.
\68\Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011)) (quoting Malley
v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of excessive force claims against police
officers, qualified immunity has frequently barred victims of
civil rights abuses from recovering in court. Even before
qualified immunity is applied, a plaintiff alleging excessive
force must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the officer caused injury or death to the victim by
applying more force than ``objectively reasonable'' under the
circumstances.\69\ This reasonableness test ``requires careful
attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular
case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers
or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or
attempting to evade arrest by flight.''\70\ Qualified immunity
imposes an additional and nearly insurmountable barrier: it
requires the plaintiff to show that prior case law from an
appellate court or the Supreme Court has already established
that nearly identical conduct in nearly identical circumstances
is unlawful.\71\ For example, the Supreme Court recently denied
review in a case holding that an officer who shot a child while
aiming for a family dog--who posed no evident threat--was
protected by qualified immunity, because no prior case law
provided sufficiently ```obvious clarity' to the unique and
unfortunate circumstances'' of the case.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\Graham, 490 U.S. at 397 (1989).
\70\Id. at 396.
\71\See, Ifill Testimony at 4-5; e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct.
1148 (2018) (per curiam); Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (per
curiam).
\72\Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2019),
cert denied, No. 19-679, 2020 WL 3146693 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified immunity has faced considerable criticism from a
broad range of scholars,\73\ practitioners,\74\ civil rights
advocates,\75\ and even judges and Justices.\76\ As Sherrilyn
Ifill, Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, explained in her testimony before the
Committee, qualified immunity ``has been interpreted by courts
so expansively that it now provides near-impunity for police
officers who engage in unconstitutional acts of violence.''\77\
Section 102 of H.R. 7120 addresses the particular obstacles
that qualified immunity imposes in civil rights suits against
law enforcement officials. It expressly bars the defense of
qualified immunity in Section 1983 suits against state and
local law enforcement officers by prohibiting defenses based on
the ``good faith'' of the official or on the purported absence
of ``clearly established'' law.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\See, e.g., William Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106
Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2018); David Rudovsky, The Qualified Immunity Doctrine
in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of
Constitutional Rights, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 (1989).
\74\See, e.g., Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of
Benjamin Crump, at 1-2) [hereinafter ``Crump Testimony''].
\75\See, e.g., Ifill Testimony at 4-5; Gupta Testimony at 6; Letter
from Clark Neily, Vice President of Criminal Justice, Cato Institute,
to Members of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 16, 2020).
\76\See, e.g., Baxter v. Bracey, No. 18-1287, 2020 WL 3146701, at
*1 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari and
observing that ``our Sec. 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to
stray from the statutory text''); Jon. O. Newman, Here's a Better Way
to Punish the Police: Sue Them for Money, Wash. Post (June 23, 2016).
\77\Ifill Testimony at 4.
\78\The ``good faith'' defense reflects an earlier iteration of
qualified immunity doctrine in which the courts assessed whether the
defendant subjectively believed his or her conduct was lawful. See,
e.g., Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 102 also prohibits such defenses in suits against
federal law enforcement officers. Although no federal statute
expressly provides a right of action to seek damages against
federal officials for violations of the plaintiff's
constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
recognized that individuals may pursue such actions in certain
circumstances.\79\ In order to further ensure that federal
officials are subject to the same accountability as their state
and local counterparts, the Committee may also consider
legislation in the future to expressly codify Bivens. In the
meantime, Section 102 reflects the Committee's understanding
that Bivens remains good law and that qualified immunity should
not shield federal law enforcement officials in Bivens suits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\403 U.S. 388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some have contended that eliminating qualified
immunity would unfairly subject police officers to liability
and could thereby harm police recruitment or cause officers to
hesitate in performing their functions, the Committee finds
these arguments unpersuasive. First, as an exhaustive study of
police indemnification policies has demonstrated, police
officers are almost never personally required to pay damages in
civil rights suits.\80\ Those costs are instead borne by the
officers' employers. The elimination of qualified immunity will
thus create appropriate incentives for cities and police
departments to minimize instances of police brutality through
proper training and disciplinary mechanisms. Second, even
without the defense of qualified immunity, the existing
``objective reasonableness'' standard applied in excessive
force cases already requires an intensive examination of ``the
facts and circumstances of each particular case.''\81\ The
elimination of qualified immunity does not alter that
underlying test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\Joanna C. Schwartz, Police Indemnification, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev.
885 (2014).
\81\Graham, 490 U.S. at 397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the overall purpose of addressing police
misconduct, H.R. 7120 does not address qualified immunity in
civil rights suits against other types of officials. As already
noted, qualified immunity imposes a particularly high barrier
to recovery in excessive force cases when combined with the
fact-specific nature of the ``objective reasonableness'' test
applied by the courts. Nonetheless, this legislation in no
sense constitutes a ratification of qualified immunity in other
contexts. The Committee shares the widespread concerns that
have been raised regarding the doctrine, including its lack of
foundation in the text of Section 1983 and the obstacles it
presents to victims whose constitutional rights have been
violated. In the future, the Committee may consider legislation
to eliminate qualified immunity in cases against other types of
officials, including by taking into account the nature of the
officials' duties and the types of constitutional claims likely
to arise. In addition, because qualified immunity reflects a
judge-made doctrine and is not rooted in legislative text, the
Supreme Court maintains ample authority to revise or eliminate
it.
4. Independent Investigations, Departmental Discipline, and
Civilian Oversight
H.R. 7120 ensures independent investigations of police uses
of force and independent civilian oversight of police
departments. Police departments use internal disciplinary
processes to sanction officers whose application of force
deviates from departmental policies and procedures. Penalties
can range from loss of leave to termination. Each state
legislature has passed a set of administrative rules, typically
called a ``Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR)''
that govern departmental disciplinary procedures. One key and
controversial provision typically included in a LEOBR is the
``cooling off'' period, in which departmental investigators are
prohibited from interviewing officers that have fatally applied
force for a pre-determined period of time (typically 2-10 days)
following the incident. The purpose of this provision is to
allow for the psychological trauma typically involved in a
fatal application of force to recede prior to compelling the
officer to recount the events of the incident in detail.
Additionally, many police departments enter into contracts
with police unions that allow officers that have engaged in
serious or repeated misconduct to remain on the force, or
transfer to other police forces. For example, 43 cities and 4
states erase records of misconduct making it difficult to
discipline repeat offenders, or track officers with a
propensity for misconduct if they switch departments.\82\ One
high profile example of how this failure ended in fatal
consequences was when former Chicago Police Officer Jason Van
Dyke, who had 20 complaints--half of which concerned use of
force--fired 16 shots at Laquan McDonald, killing him.\83\ Van
Dyke was never disciplined or flagged as a potential problem
and was later convicted of second degree murder for killing
McDonald.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\See Police Union Contract Project, checkthepolice.org, https://
www.checkthepolice.org (last accessed May 29, 2020).
\83\See Stephen Rushin, Police Union Contracts, 66 Duke L.J. 1191,
1195, n. 14 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critics argue that departmental disciplinary processes
serve to protect officers from true accountability. For
example, a study of the CPD showed that it sustained only 15
excessive force complaints out of 5,357 filed between 2002 and
2004.\84\ Additionally, a June 2019 NYPD Inspector General
report showed that the NYPD failed to sustain any of the 2,495
complaints of racially biased policing made between 2014 and
2018.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\Craig B. Futterman, H. Melissa Mather, and Melanie Miles, The
Use of Statistical Evidence to Address Police Supervisory and
Disciplinary Practices: The Chicago Police Department's Broken System,
1 DePaul J. for Soc. Just., 251, 267 (Table 1) (2008).
\85\N.Y. Dep't of Investigation, Complaints of Biased Policing in
New York City 2 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many state and local law enforcement agencies have
authorized civilian oversight over police departments. The idea
behind civilian review is to provide a level of oversight and
deterrence, separate and independent of the police departments,
that carries legitimacy within the community. Typically,
civilian oversight bodies use an adversarial fact-finding
process to investigate individual claims of police
misconduct.\86\ They are also authorized to investigate
patterns of police misconduct, engage in community outreach,
and recommend policy reforms.\87\ Critics of civilian oversight
bodies point out that they often lack investigative resources
and expertise, and the power to independently sanction police
officers who are found responsible for engaging in
misconduct.\88\ In the typical model, although the civilian
oversight body can recommend a sanction, any actual punishment
is determined by the department.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\Nathan Witkin, The Police-Community Partnership: Civilian
Oversight As An Evaluation Tool for Community Policing, 18 Scholar: St.
Mary's L. Rev. & Soc. Just. 181, 187 (2016).
\87\Id. at 187.
\88\See id. at 188-193.
\89\See id. at 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address some of the concerns about the limitations of
departmental disciplinary mechanisms and civilian oversight,
including concern about police officers who have repeatedly
engaged in misconduct being permitted to continue serving as
officers, H.R. 7120 creates a grant program for state attorneys
general to establish independent investigation processes for
uses of deadly force by law enforcement officers, to address
concerns about the lack of such independence in department-led
investigations.\90\ Both the President's Task Force and the
USCCR recommended such an independent investigation process for
police misconduct.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\H.R. 7210, Sec. 104.
\91\USCCR Report at 5; The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also establishes a national police misconduct
registry that would allow members of the public and law
enforcement agencies to know about a particular officer's
history of misconduct complaints, the officer's discipline or
termination records, and records of lawsuits or settlements
involving the officer and require agencies to certify hiring
eligibility for law enforcement officers who change
departments.\92\ As Dr. Phillip Goff, Co-Founder and Chief
Executive Officer of the Center for Policing Equity, testified,
a national police misconduct registry is a reform that will
increase transparency and the public's trust in law enforcement
agencies. Doctors and lawyers, along with many other
professions, are required to be licensed and their employment
data are shared across state lines by appropriate entities. Why
should a police officer who has been terminated for cause be
able to move to another state or jurisdiction without
undergoing an appropriate background check? The creation of a
national clearinghouse with a list of those officers who have
been terminated will empower state and local governments to
decide what standards they want to set for officer conduct and
character. Without it, many law enforcement agencies simply do
not have the capacity to determine whether or not an officer
was fired prior to seeking employment--and many, therefore, do
not.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 201, 202.
\93\Goff Testimony at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also requires the Attorney General to conduct a
study of the impact that any law, rule, or procedure that
allows law enforcement officers to unreasonably delay answering
questions from investigators of their misconduct.\94\ This
provision will help guide future efforts to address
unreasonable or arbitrary delays by officers accused of
misconduct in responding to investigators' inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\H.R. 7120, Sec. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Collection Measures
H.R. 7120 addresses the concern raised by the 2018 USCCR
report and amplified by the testimony of several witnesses
before the Committee on the need for robust data collection on
police-community encounters and that a lack of comprehensive,
publicly-available data about police use of force sharpens
mistrust of the police in minority communities.\95\ As the
USCCR found, accurate and comprehensive data regarding police
uses of force is generally not available to police departments
or the American public, no comprehensive national database
exists that captures rates of police use of force, and the lack
of data on use of force is exacerbated by the absence of
mandatory federal reporting and standardized reporting
guidelines.\96\ Similarly, the President's Task Force had
recommended the collection and public availability of
demographic data concerning police interactions with the
public.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\USCCR Report at 4; Acevedo Testimony at 5 (``robust data
collection and analysis can help inform decision-making and identify
problems''); Davis at 6 (emphasizing the need to require ``robust data
collection on police community encounters and law enforcement
activities'' that should capture all demographic categories and be
disaggregated); Gupta Testimony at 5 (highlighting importance of
disaggregated data and emphasizing that this data ``allows communities
and departments to analyze the effects of policies and practices, and
to change and advocate against them if they are ineffective or
disproportionately affect particular communities or groups).
\96\USCCR Report at 4.
\97\The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The task of collecting data regarding the scope of
excessive, but non-fatal, applications of force is made more
complicated by the use of ``cover charges'' or arrests lacking
in legal justification, to serve as a pretext for officers to
apply excessive force or engage in other misconduct.\98\ These
offenses, often charged alone or in combination with other low-
level charges, include battery, resisting arrest, disorderly
conduct, and failure to obey a lawful order. In some instances,
the cover charges arise from traffic stops or other minor
encounters that escalate when an officer feels disrespected.
This abusive conduct deters victims from reporting instances of
excessive force or other misconduct and undermines
investigations into misconduct.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\See Jonah Newman, Chicago police use ``cover charges'' to
justify excessive force, Chicago Reporter, Oct. 23, 2018, https://
www.chicagoreporter.com/chicago-police-use-cover-charges-to-justify-
excessive-force/.
\99\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, research indicates the widespread use of cover
charges to hide instances in which police applied excessive
force in Chicago. Since 2004, 66% of reported CPD force
applications resulted in the victim being arrested for
aggravated assault against a police officer, aggravated battery
against a police officer, or resisting arrest.\100\ Between
2012 and September 2016, Chicago police made more than 1,300
arrests where the only charge was resisting arrest, and more
than half of these cases were ultimately dismissed; the absence
of an underlying offense raises red flags as to the legitimacy
of the officer's decision to use force.\101\ The burden then
falls on the victim to determine how to use their limited time
and resources; the options include defending the criminal
charges, pleading guilty, hoping for diversion or dismissal by
the prosecution, or filing an excessive force complaint. The
evidence indicates that cover charge arrests cause direct and
significant harm to those arrested, impact communities of color
disproportionately, and exacerbate tensions between those
communities and law enforcement.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\See id.
\101\See id.
\102\See generally, Christy E. Lopez, Disorderly (mis) Conduct: The
Problem with ``Contempt of Cop'' Arrests, American Constitution Society
For Law and Policy, available at http://live-acslaw.pantheonsite.io/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Lopez_Contempt_of_Cop.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7120 addresses the concern about the lack of adequate
and consistent data collection regarding police conduct by
requiring the Attorney General to collect data on use of force
incidents from state and local law enforcement entities,
disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, age,
disability, housing status, English language proficiency, and
gender.\103\ The reports from state and local agencies to the
Attorney General must also include the date, time and location
of the incident; whether the civilian was armed; the reason
force was used; and a description of any injuries.\104\ This
information is to be made available to the public.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\H.R. 7120, Sec. 223.
\104\Id.
\105\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Pre-Incident Measures To Reduce Risk of Violent Police-Citizen
Encounters
1. Use of Force Standards
H.R. 7120 establishes a uniform use-of-force standard for
federal officers and conditions grants for state and local law
enforcement agencies on their following those same use-of-force
standards.\106\ In terms of the substance of these standards,
the bill requires that federal officers use deadly force only
as a last resort to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury
and requires officers to employ de-escalation techniques.\107\
The standard would also allow federal officers to use less
lethal force only if necessary and proportional to effectuate
an arrest.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\H.R. 7120, Sec. 364.
\107\Id.
\108\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement agencies generally have a set of directives
or ``general orders'' that govern how they deliver services to
the public, including the circumstances under which officers
are authorized to use force. The standards provide officers
with the tools they need to protect themselves and the public
during encounters that are often emotionally charged and
rapidly evolving. For example, the policy of the Metropolitan
Police Department of Washington D.C., as expressed in its
general orders, is to ``value and preserve human life when
using lawful authority to use force.''\109\ The policy provides
guidance on when deadly force is authorized, provides a
continuum for the level of non-deadly force appropriate for
given situations, requires the provision of prompt medical
attention to any injured subject, and requires notification and
reporting for all applications of force involving injury.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\D.C. Metro. Police Dep't., Gen. Order GO-RAR-901.07 at 2,
available at https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_901_07.pdf.
\110\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such standards on use of force, however, vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction in substance or in the manner of
application. Testifying in support of H.R. 7120's uniform use-
of-force standards, Professor Paul Butler of Georgetown
University Law Center noted, ``There are 18,000 different
police departments in the United States, and the problem is
that right now there are 18,000 different ways of policing. To
establish accountability and transparency among the men and
women who are licensed to kill, basic standards must be
imposed.''\111\ Several other witnesses also testified in
support of the bill's use-of-force standards.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\Butler Testimony at 4-5.
\112\Crump Testimony at 1 (stating that police officers should
``only use the level of force needed based on the level of threat
actually posed by the circumstances); Davis Testimony at 6, 9 (stating
NOBLE's support for bill's use of force provision); Gupta Testimony at
4 (stating support for bill's use of force provision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Accreditation
Law enforcement accreditation entities institutionalize
best practices in the delivery of public safety services by
establishing a professionalized set of policing standards,
developed by public safety practitioners and other experts,
that address core issues impacting community confidence while
supporting police as an institution.\113\ To maintain
accreditation, law enforcement agencies voluntarily demonstrate
that they meet the established standards. Accredited agencies
must develop comprehensive, uniform directives linked to the
accreditation standards, which are reinforced on an ongoing
basis through data collection, onsite observation, agency
reporting, community input, and public commission
hearings.\114\ Accreditation demonstrates a law enforcement
agency's commitment to safety and professionalism which
strengthens the agency's reputation in and relationship with
the community. It also promotes a culture of compliance and
accountability within the agency which, in turn, reduces its
exposure to liability.\115\ H.R. 7120 adopts this approach, in
part, by requiring the Attorney General to create law
enforcement accreditation standards based on recommendations by
the President's Task Force.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\Policing Strategies for the 21st Century: Hearing Before the
H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 12-13 (2015) (testimony of W.
Craig Hartley, Jr. Executive Director, Commission on Accreditation of
Law Enforcement Agencies).
\114\See id. at 12.
\115\Matt Kenyon, Benefits of Police Accreditation, POWERDMS, Aug.
13, 2018, available at https://www.powerdms.com/blog/benefits-of-
police-accreditation/.
\116\H.R. 7120, Sec. 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Training to End Racial Profiling and To Reduce Risk of
Violent Interactions Between Police and Racial and
Other Minorities
H.R. 7120 creates several new training programs to reduce
the risk of violent interactions between law enforcement
officers and members of minority communities. Federal studies
examining racial inequality dating back to the 1940s and 1960s
cited inadequacies in officer training and professionalism as a
contributing factor to disproportionate police violence against
minorities and increased racial tensions.\117\ More recently,
the President's Task Force report made several detailed
recommendations for improving police officer standards and
training (POST) and reducing police violence against
minorities. The 2015 report overall emphasized that POSTs
should include ``develop[ing] specialized knowledge and
understanding that enable fair and procedurally just
policing.''\118\ The 2015 report also noted that while
``[t]actical skills are important'' developing law enforcement
officers' ``attitude, tolerance, and interpersonal skills are
equally'' necessary to improved policing in minority
communities.\119\ The 2018 USCCR report similarly recommended
that ``[t]he Department of Justice should robustly support
local efforts to develop and institute constitutional policing
practices.''\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\See Kerner Commission Report at 15 (suggesting that police
departments ``develop and adopt policy guidelines to assist officers in
making critical decisions in cases where police conduct can create
tension''); 1947 Report at 157 (recommending that ``police training
programs . . . should be oriented so as to indoctrinate officers with
an awareness of civil rights problems.).
\118\The President's Task Force at 52.
\119\Id.
\120\USCCR Report at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also heard witness testimony at its June 10,
2020 oversight hearing on policing practices that echoed the
2015 and 2018 reports' recommendations that law enforcement
officer training also include programs on racial and implicit
bias and racial profiling as a means of improving policing in
minority communities. Professor Paul Butler stated, ``[t]oo
often police work seems to enforce the dehumanization of people
of color. Understanding the history and reality of racism in
the United States will make our men and women in blue more
effective police officers.''\121\ LCCHR President Vanita Gupta
recommended prohibiting racial profiling and the promotion of
training programs that emphasize ``[t]he equal treatment of all
people, regardless of background, class, or characteristic'' in
order ``to prevent and hold officers accountable for
discriminatory policing and reduce and mitigate its disparate
impact on marginalized communities.''\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\Butler Testimony at 5.
\122\Gupta Testimony at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation also supports the creation of training
programs intended to address the inadequacies in law
enforcement training and tactics that these studies have
suggested factor into the disproportionate rate of police
violence against racial minorities and other marginalized
groups. Section 114 of H.R. 7120 authorizes the use of grant
funding to support local law enforcement in developing policing
best practices in areas including effective management,
training, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to
promote effective community and problem-solving strategies for
law enforcement agencies.\123\ To that end, section 114 also
authorizes the development of pilot programs designed to
implement policies, practices, and procedures addressing
training and instruction to comply with accreditation standards
in areas including: the use of force, and de-escalation tactics
and techniques; investigation of officer misconduct and
practices and procedures for referring to prosecuting
authorities allegations of use of excessive force or racial
profiling; interactions with youth, individuals with
disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency, and
multi-cultural communities; and community relations and bias
awareness.\124\ This section also authorizes grants for pilot
programs to develop policies, procedures, and practices for the
recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of diverse law
enforcement officers.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\H.R. 7120, Sec. 114.
\124\Id.
\125\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 334 authorizes the use of grant funding to support
local law enforcement in the development and implementation of
best practices for training to prevent racial profiling and to
encourage more respectful interaction with the public.\126\
Section 361 requires the Attorney General to establish a
training program for law enforcement officers to cover racial
profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice.\127\ It also
requires the Attorney General to establish a clear duty for
Federal law enforcement officers to intervene in cases where
another law enforcement officer is using excessive force
against a civilian, and to establish a training program that
cover the duty to intervene.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\H.R. 7120, Sec. 334.
\127\H.R. 7120, Sec. 361.
\128\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ban on Chokeholds and Carotid Holds
In response to the cases of George Floyd, Eric Garner, and
others, H.R. 7120 incentivizes state and local law enforcement
agencies to ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.\129\
It also defines a chokehold as a ``punishment, pain, or
penalty'' for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242, the federal civil
rights criminal statute discussed earlier in this report.\130\
This definition makes chokeholds and carotid holds a federal
civil rights crime under Section 242. Testifying in support of
this provision, Vanita Gupta of LCCHR stated ``Chokeholds are
inherently dangerous, as we have seen in the horrific deaths of
George Floyd and Eric Garner before. Recognizing the inherent
danger of chokeholds and the threat they pose to human life,
police departments in cities such as New York, Atlanta, and
Miami prohibit them.''\131\ Other witnesses also testified in
support of the bill's ban on chokeholds and similar
maneuvers.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\H.R. 7120, Sec. 363(b).
\130\Id. Sec. 363(c).
\131\Gupta Testimony at 5.
\132\Crump Testimony at 1; Davis Testimony at 6, 8; Goff Testimony
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases
In response to the serious risk to lives that the use of
no-knock warrants presents, as demonstrated by the tragic
circumstances of Breonna Taylor's death, Section 362 of H.R.
7120 bans no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level
and conditions law enforcement funding for state and local law
enforcement agencies on prohibition of the use of no-knock
warrants in drug cases.\133\ ``No-knock'' raids are a
pernicious exception to the Fourth Amendment ``knock and
announce'' rule that permits law enforcement officers to enter
a residence without knocking or otherwise announcing their
presence. In the course of securing a no knock warrant, law
enforcement agencies must show that providing notice may be
dangerous, futile, or result in the destruction of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\H.R. 7120, Sec. 362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the George W. Bush Administration in 2002, the DOJ
recognized that ``although officers need not take affirmative
steps to make an independent re-verification of the
circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a
no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to
disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence
of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such
information before execution of the warrant.''\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office
of Legal Counsel, Authority of Federal Judges and Magistrates to Issue
``No-Knock'' Warrants, (Jun. 12, 2002), available at https://
www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2002/06/31/op-olc-
v026-p0044_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the course of the last few decades, the use of ``no
knock'' warrants, which are primarily used in drug
investigations, and typically justified by the belief that
offenders will destroy drugs, have become more frequent, and
these raids occur at an alarming rate in the U.S. every year.
In the early 1980s, approximately 1,500 no-knock warrants were
executed annually, and by 2010, about 45,000 such warrants were
executed.\135\ There exists, however, an increased risk of
death or injury to children, bystanders, or others caught in
the crossfire during these volatile execution of no-knock
warrants. Between 2010 and 2016, at least 81 civilians and 13
law enforcement officers died as a result of executing no-knock
warrants in drug cases.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\Eric Foster, Death and heartbreak caused by `no-knock'
warrants are impossible to justify, (Jun 17, 2020), available at
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2020/06/death-and-heartbreak-caused-
by-no-knock-warrants-are-impossible-to-justify-eric-foster.html.
\136\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Ms. Gupta stated in her testimony in support of the
bill's ban on no-knock warrants,
No-knock warrants are inherently dangerous and have not
proven to be more effective than search warrants that preserve
the Fourth Amendment rule of knock-and-announce. When police
burst into people's houses, unannounced, occupants are more
likely to use weapons to try to defend themselves--endangering
both the public and officers. We saw this exact scenario play
out with Breonna Taylor's death. Furthermore, the increased
risk of death or injury to children, bystanders, or others
caught in the crossfire counsels against the use of no-knock
warrants. Indeed, two states already outlaw no-knock warrants.
Congress should likewise pass legislation prohibiting their
use.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\Gupta Testimony at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Limit Transfers of Military Equipment for Police
a. Background on 1033 Program
Over the past ten years, the deployment by law enforcement
of second-hand military equipment has become a fixture at
protests throughout the United States. Following the 2014
protests in Ferguson, MO, law enforcement acquisition and use
of military vehicles and firearms, through a program frequently
referred to as the ``1033 Program,'' came under increased
scrutiny.\138\ The use of surplus military equipment at recent
protests has again refocused Congressional interest in
oversight over the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\See 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2576a (2018). The reference to ``1033'' is
to Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, the
provision that granted permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense
to transfer defense material to federal and state law enforcement
agencies. Daniel H. Else, The ``1033'' Program, Department of Defense
Support to Law Enforcement, Congressional Research Service Report to
Congress 2, R43701 (Aug. 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1033 Program authorizes law enforcement agencies to
receive surplus military property from the Department of
Defense (DoD). Within DoD, the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA)
Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) administers the Program
and facilitates law enforcement agencies' receipt of excess
military equipment. Currently, every state in the United States
participates in the program, in addition to the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Additionally, a number of federal agencies and
Indian tribes also receive excess equipment. As of 2016, 6,536
law enforcement agencies participated in the program.\139\ From
1991 to 2017, DoD reported that it transferred over $7 billion-
worth of its excess controlled and noncontrolled personal
property to more than 8,600 federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies.\140\ Participants in the 1033 Program may
choose to receive a diverse set of equipment, from uniforms,
boots, and personal protective gear to weapons, ammunition,
armored personnel carriers, and aircraft.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, DOD Excess Property (GAO-17-
532), 8, Jul. 2017, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/
685916.pdf [hereinafter ``GAO Report''].
\140\Brian Barrett, The Pentagon's Hand-Me-Downs Helped Militarize
Police. Here's How, Wired, Jun. 6, 2020, https://www.wired.com/story/
pentagon-hand-me-downs-militarize-police-1033-program/.
\141\By example, in 2014, Kentucky received generators, assault
weapons, and socks. See Jonathan Meador, Kentucky Police Get Guns,
Aircraft and Socks from Military Surplus Program, 89.3 WFPL News
Louisville, Aug. 27, 2014, available at https://wfpl.org/kentucky-
police-get-guns-aircraft-and-socks-from-military-surplus-program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Regulation of the 1033 Program
Since its inception, the 1033 Program has been subject to
intense oversight on account of the DoD's excessively lax
administration of the Program.\142\ Following the Ferguson
protests, President Obama issued Executive Order 13688, which
aimed to rein in law enforcement's use of military
equipment.\143\ In Executive Order 13688, President Obama
directed an interagency group to develop guidelines that would
impose ``limitations or affirmative obligations imposed on the
acquisition of controlled equipment or receipt of funds to
purchase controlled equipment.''\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\See DoD, DLA Office of the Inspector General, Audit of Law
Enforcement Support Office Program Oversight, DLA OIG FY14-02 (Nov. 21,
2013); DLA Office of the Inspector General, Follow-up Audit of the Law
Enforcement Support Office, DAO-12-26 (Apr. 4, 2013); DLA
Accountability Office, Audit of Law Enforcement Support Office, Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service, DAO-09-01 (Mar. 1, 2010); and
Office of the Inspector General, Logistics: Law Enforcement Support
Office Excess Property Program, D-2003-101 (June 13, 2003).
\143\Exec. Order No. 13688, Federal Support for Local Law
Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, 80 C.F.R. 3451 (2015).
\144\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, the Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group
convened pursuant to Executive Order 13688 issued a report
that, among other recommendations, obliged Executive agencies
to carry out reviews of compliance with ``financial and
programmatic obligations and adherence to civil rights statutes
and requirements'' by 1033 Program recipients.\145\
Additionally, the report encouraged Executive agencies to
consider whether a 1033 Program recipient had been found to be
in violation of a federal civil rights statute or programmatic
term during the previous three years when considering future
provision of federal property. Two years later, the President's
Task Force echoed the concern with misuse or abuse of
controlled equipment, like that issued through the 1033
Program, and recommended compliance with civil rights
requirements resulting from receipt of federal financial
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, Recommendations
Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law
Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, May 2015, https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
le_equipment_wg_final_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report that reviewed the 1033 Program, with a specific
focus on accountability of controlled items and DoD's
administration of the Program. As part of their review, the GAO
posed as a law enforcement agency and applied for controlled
items through the 1033 Program. GAO employees, who represented
that they were representatives of the created law enforcement
agency were about to obtain ``over 100 controlled items with an
estimated value of $1.2 million, including nightvision goggles,
simulated rifles, and simulated pipe bombs, which could be
potentially lethal items if modified with commercially
available items.''\146\ Not surprisingly, the GAO's testing
identified that DLA has deficiencies in its processes for
verification and approval of federal law enforcement agency
applications and in the transfer of controlled property. The
GAO also found that DoD had not conducted a fraud risk
assessment and lacked internal controls that could prevent,
detect, and respond to potential fraud and minimize associated
security risks. On August 28, 2017, President Donald J. Trump
revoked Executive Order 13688 and lifted many of the
accountability measures that were instituted on account of
President Obama's order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\GAO Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the foregoing, H.R. 7120 limits transfers under
the 1033 Program from the U.S. military to federal and state
law enforcement agencies. Despite the opposition from members
of the Minority to this provision, there is good reason to
restrict transfers of firearms and military-grade equipment.
The record of mismanagement of the 1033 program is well-
documented, as outlined above. The GAO found poor management by
DoD over the transfer of controlled items, such as firearms.
Furthermore, contrary to what the Minority asserts, the bill's
language does not prohibit the transfer of items that are not
made for military use, such as office supplies and clothing.
These items make up the overwhelming majority of items
transferred through the 1033 program. The bill simply prohibits
the transfer of military vehicles, firearms, and surveillance
equipment.
The Minority's attempt to allow transfer of military
equipment for use in border control and enforcement was also
misguided. The Congress already provides hundreds of millions
of dollars for border enforcement. Studies suggest that
agencies that receive such equipment see no measurable
improvement in officer safety or crime rates, and, rather,
there is a correlation with higher rates of officer-involved
shootings and reduced public trust. There's no evidence that
additional military-grade equipment will improve border
security. This alone serves as justification for the transfer
limitations in the bill. Sending additional military equipment
for use in border enforcement also further militarizes the
Canadian and Mexican borders, communities where tens of
millions of Americans live.
7. Body Cameras and Limits on Facial Recognition Technology
a. Law Enforcement and Body Cameras
Over the past several years, body cameras have come to be
regarded as a key police accountability tool. A 2015 poll found
that 88 percent of Americans supported the use of body cameras
by law enforcement.\147\ Beginning in 2015, the DOJ under the
Obama Administration began awarding grants to local law
enforcement agencies to aid in financing the initial purchase
of body cameras.\148\ In 2016, DOJ surveys found that 95
percent of law enforcement agencies in large cities had already
launched or planned to launch body camera programs in the
future.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\Peter Moore, Overwhelming support for police body cameras,
YouGov.Com, May 7, 2015 available at https://today.yougov.com/topics/
politics/articles-reports/2015/05/07/body-cams.
\148\Kimberly Kindy, Some U.S. police departments dump body-camera
programs amid high costs, Wash. Post, Jan. 21, 2019.
\149\P.R. Lockhart, Why some police departments are dropping their
body camera programs, Vox, Jan. 25, 2019 available at https://
www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18196097/police-body-cameras-storage-cost-
washington-post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the adoption of body camera programs by law
enforcement agencies appears to be growing--if not widespread
among major law enforcement agencies--there are no uniform
standards with respect to protocols for the use of body cameras
that balance law enforcement needs with personal privacy
interests, as well as the processing and retention of data.
Similarly, some small and medium-sized law enforcement
departments are reportedly ending their body camera programs
due to the costs associated with the retention and processing
of body camera footage.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7120 addresses these issues by requiring federal
uniformed police officers to wear body cameras and to have
dashboard cameras in marked federal patrol vehicles, setting
forth rules governing retention and dissemination of footage
and describing ways in which footage can be used to investigate
misconduct or as evidence in criminal proceedings.\151\ With
respect to state and local law enforcement, the bill requires
that they use existing federal funds to ensure the use of body
cameras by officers and requires grant recipients to establish
policies and procedures for safe use of such cameras.\152\
Specifically, it authorizes DOJ to award grants and to provide
technical assistance related to body camera programs, and to
condition such awards on the adoption of uniform standards
described in the legislation.\153\ The grant program is also
intended to ensure that small and medium-sized law enforcement
agencies are able to acquire funding to maintain their body-
camera programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 371-373, 375-377.
\152\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 381-382.
\153\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Facial Recognition Technology
Facial recognition systems use computer algorithms to pick
out specific details about a person's face, such as the
distance between the eyes or the shape of a chin, and converts
these details into a mathematical representation.\154\ This
information is then compared to data on faces already collected
in the facial recognition database.\155\ Facial recognition
technology can identify people in photos, videos, or in real-
time. Face recognition has been used in airports, at border
crossings, and during events such as the Super Bowl.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\Jennifer Lynch, Face Off: Law Enforcement Use of Facial
Recognition Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 4-5 (2019),
available at, https://www.eff.org/wp/law-enforcement-use-face-
recognition.
\155\Id at 5.
\156\Niraj Chokshi, Facial Recognition's Many Controversies: From
Stadium Surveillance to Racist Software, N. Y. Times, May 1, 2019
(noting that the city of Tampa, Florida, used facial recognition
software during the 2001 Superbowl and identified 19 people with
outstanding warrants). See also Franchesca Street, How Facial
Recognition is Taking Over Airports, CNN Oct. 8, 2019) (noting that
some airlines are using a facial scan instead of boarding passes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Federal Government Use of Facial Recognition
Technology
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mainly uses two
types of facial recognition software, Next General
Identification-Interstate Photo System (NGI-ISP) and Facial
Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation (FACE) Services. The NGI-
ISP database contains over 30 million face recognition records
pulled from state criminal sources, such as mug shots, and is
shared with state and local governments.\157\ In addition to
the FBI, a select group of state and local agencies can also
submit a request to use NGI-ISP to help them identify an
unknown person during an investigation. According to the FBI,
in fiscal year, NGI-ISP returned about 50,000 face recognition
search results to law enforcement agencies.\158\ The FBI also
has a team of employees working in FACE Services.\159\ Unlike
NGI-ISP, FACE Services use non-criminal photos, pulled mostly
from driver's license photos, passports, and visa applications.
The FBI has agreements with 21 states as well as the Department
of State to allow it to search its systems. The total number of
photos available to FACE Services is more than 411
million.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\Memorandum from Kimberly Del Greco, Criminal Justice Info.
Serv., FBI to Comm. on Oversight & Reform Staff (May 30, 2019),
available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/
2019.05.31.%20Hearing%20Memo%20for%20the%20
Facial%20Recognition%20Technology%20%28Part%20II%29.pdf.
\158\Statement of Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security
and Justice Team, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Before the Comm. on
Oversight & Reform, H. of Rep., June 4, 2010, available at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190604/109578/HHRG-116-GO00-Wstate-
GoodwinG-20190604.pdf.
\159\Lynch, Face Off, supra note 1, at 15.
\160\Government Accountability Office, Face Recognition Technology;
FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and Accuracy (May 2016), available at
www.gao.gov/productus/GAO-16-267).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Facial Recognition's Shortcomings
The use of this technology is troubling because studies
have shown that these identification systems have a high error
rate when it comes to correctly identifying women and people of
color.\161\ A 2019 study conducted by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology on the reliability of facial
recognition systems found that there was a higher rate of false
positives for black people than for whites.\162\ The study also
showed that false positives were up to 100 times more likely
for black people than for white people.\163\ Additionally, the
rate of false positives were higher for women than men across
all races.\164\ Not surprisingly, since African Americans are
more likely to be arrested (and subsequently photographed), the
high propensity of false positives has a disproportionate
impact on the group.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\Patrick Grother Mei Ngan Kayee Hanaoka, Face Recognition
Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3: Demographic Effects, NIST, 2019, available
at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf.
\162\See id.
\163\Id.
\164\Id.
\165\Megan Stevenson, & Sandra Gabriel Mayson, The Scale of
Misdemeanor Justice. 98 Boston Univ. L. Rev 731, 759 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that the FBI has been using these
recognition systems for many years, there is little
transparency and oversight within the FBI regarding its facial
recognition systems.\166\ A GAO report found that the FBI had
not yet conducted the necessary audits of its newest facial
recognition system to ensure that the system can correctly
identify individuals.\167\ Nor has the FBI studied how states
have used the information gleaned from FBI's facial recognition
systems.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\GAO, Face Recognition Technology; supra note 7.
\167\Id.
\168\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7120's body-camera provisions also contain limitations
on the use of facial recognition technology. Specifically, the
bill prohibits the use of facial recognition technology in body
cameras worn by federal officers, prohibits footage from such
cameras from being subjected to facial recognition technology,
and imposes the same restrictions on dashboard cameras and
footage.\169\ Additionally, it prohibits states from using
federal funds for expenses related to facial recognition
technology.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 372(g), 374.
\170\Id. Sec. 382(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Incentivizing Public Safety Innovations
In addition to providing program support for training and
mechanisms of accountability for police misconduct, H.R. 7120
also authorizes the use of federal grant money to foster
innovation in areas of public safety. The Committee recognizes
that a potent mix of interconnected societal ills such as
racism and poverty--which federal and state governments have
failed to adequately address for decades--have long shaped law
enforcement officers' interactions with minority communities,
especially in poverty-stricken communities, contributing to
incidences of police violence.\171\ Societal issues like
poverty, chronic homelessness, untreated substance abuse, and
unaddressed mental illness, while not exclusive to communities
of color, disproportionately affect them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\See Kerner Commission Report; 1947 Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several witnesses at the Committee's June 10, 2020 hearing
recommended that the federal government support efforts to
develop alternative means to address public safety concerns
stemming from societal problems that are too often left to law
enforcement officers to manage. LCCHR President Vanita Gupta
noted in her written testimony that ``[m]any factors contribute
to crises relating to disabilities and substance use disorders,
such as inadequate social services and supports, high rates of
poverty, income inequality, housing insecurity, and an ongoing
opioid epidemic.''\172\ Yet because of the lack of investment
in mental health and other social services ``[m]any of these
same issues are generally the basis for police encounters that
often escalate to the use of force or turn deadly.''\173\ NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill
suggested in her testimony that ``a revised vision of public
safety that prioritizes social services, youth development,
mental health, reentry support, and meaningful provisions for
homeless individuals that strengthen community resources to
proactively address underlying factors that can contribute to
public safety concerns.''\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\Gupta Testimony at 6.
\173\Id.; see also Goff Testimony at 4 (``Even police agree that
they are ill-equipped to perform a number of services that currently
fall to them. For example, underfunding of mental health resources
often leaves police departments as the only state agents left to
respond to serious mental health crises. No one thinks this is ideal,
but often police are all communities have. Investment in community
mental health resources is a logical solve for this specific problem,
allow police to focus on crime reduction.''); Davis Testimony at 11
(suggesting that policymakers ``stop the over-reliance of police to
address social issues'' and develop community reinvestment strategies).
\174\Ifill Testimony at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this end, Section 366 of H.R. 7120 authorizes the use of
grant funding for law enforcement programs that include the
development of best practices for and the creation of local
task forces on public safety innovation charged with exploring
and developing new strategies for public safety, including non-
law enforcement strategies.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\H.R. 7120, Sec. 366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Criminalizing Conspiracy To Engage in Lynching
Title IV of H.R. 7120 is the ``Emmett Till Justice for
Victims of Lunching Act,'' which would make it a federal crime
to conspire to engage in a number of hate crimes, including
lynching.\176\ This legislation has already passed the House
and the Senate, but for parliamentary reasons, it must be
passed by both chambers again. It is appropriate that it be
added to this legislation because it would have addressed a
number of the recent incidents outlined earlier in this report.
For instance, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery by two white
civilians appears to have been the kind of racially-motivated
act of vigilantism that would have been punishable under this
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 401-402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Alternative Proposals Offered By President Trump and Senator Scott
Are Insufficient
While the Committee appreciates the fact that both
President Trump and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) have attempted to
engage the conversation over policing reform by offering their
own proposals, it is the Committee's view that these proposals
fall far short of what is necessary to effect meaningful
improvements with respect to police misconduct and the
reduction of police-community tensions. To be sure, there are
some points of commonality among all three proposals. For
example, President Trump's Executive Order, issued on June 16,
2020, would, like H.R. 7120, establish a national police
misconduct registry and require the Attorney General to certify
law enforcement accreditation agencies, and all three proposals
would make conspiracy to engage in lynching a federal crime.
The proposals offered by President Trump and Senator Scott,
however, are completely missing many significant law
enforcement accountability and reform measures that are
contained in H.R. 7120 or otherwise take too narrow an approach
compared to H.R. 7120, falling far short of the comprehensive
steps needed for meaningful change. For example, neither the
Executive Order nor Senator Scott's bill: ban no-knock
warrants, ban racial profiling by law enforcement, ban
chokeholds without exception, have use of force standards that
prohibit the use of deadly force by law enforcement except as a
last resort, abolish qualified immunity, enhance ``pattern or
practice'' enforcement authority under 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601,
and do not modify the overly burdensome mens rea requirement in
18 U.S.C. Sec. 242.
Key Distinctions between H.R. 7120, the Scott Bill, and the Executive
Order
No-Knock Warrants--While H.R. 7120 bans ``no
knock'' warrants in drug cases at the federal level and
conditions funding for state and local law enforcement
agencies on prohibiting their use; Senator Scott's
legislation merely requires states to compile data for
use of such no-knock warrants and President Trump's
Executive Order completely ignores the problem, which
has cost many lives, including most recently Breonna
Taylor in Louisville.
Chokeholds--In light of the tragic deaths of
George Floyd, Eric Garner and others, H.R. 7120 bans
chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level and
conditions law enforcement funding for state and local
law enforcement agencies on prohibiting their use. By
contrast, Senator Scott's bill has no federal ban and
mere merely encourages chokehold bans, and even that is
limited where ``deadly force [is] authorized'' and the
President's Executive Order simply seeks standards that
take the use of chokeholds into account, also with the
exception of cases where ``the use of deadly force is
authorized by law.''
Racial Profiling--H.R. 7120 contains the
first ever outright ban on racial and religious
profiling and mandates that law enforcement entities
provide training on racial, religious, and
discriminatory profiling. By contrast Senator Scott's
bill does not include any outright ban and merely seeks
to study and develop best practices on profiling and
the Executive Order ignores this important issue.
Public Grants to Reimagine Community
Policing--This much-needed program to reimagine
policing in the wake of all too many cases of violence
and death involving police misconduct is included in
H.R. 7120, but ignored in the Scott legislation and the
President's Executive Order.
Criminal Intent Standard--While H.R. 7120
modifies the criminal intent or mens rea standard to
provide for accountability in cases of knowing or
reckless misconduct, Senator Scott's legislation and
President Trump's recent Executive Order would leave
the status quo in place.
Qualified Immunity in Civil Cases--While
H.R. 7120 eliminates the dubious and controversial
court-made doctrine of qualified immunity in civil
cases which have made it nearly impossible for many
victims to obtain recourse, Senator Scott's legislation
and President Trump's Executive Order leave the
doctrine in place.
Pattern and Practice Investigations--While
H.R. 7120 strengthens pattern and practice
investigations at the federal level and authorizes and
incentivizes state attorney general investigations, the
question is ignored under Senator Scott's legislation
and President Trump's Executive Order.
Independent Prosecution of Misconduct--While
H.R. 7120 incentivizes independent investigations of
police misconduct by states attorneys general, Senator
Scott's bill and President Trump's Executive Order
leave in place a system that too often discourages
police investigations.
Accreditation--H.R. 7120 requires the
Attorney General to create law enforcement
accreditation standard recommendations based on
President Obama's Taskforce on 21st Century policing
and creates law enforcement development programs to
develop policing best practices and improve training,
hiring, and retention programs. Senator Scott's bill,
however, only addresses law enforcement agency hiring
and training programs by providing grant eligibility
for recruiters and academy candidates, and President
Trump's Executive Order provides for an accreditation
system, though it lacks any statutory force of law.
Misconduct Registry--H.R. 7120 addresses a
fundamental deficiency in police hiring processes by
creating a federal registry of misconduct involving
federal, state and local law enforcement officers--
which would help ensure officers who were fired, or
left the agency due to misconduct, are not re-
circulated through the hiring process in other
jurisdictions--and would allow for public disclosure
incidents involving use of force or racial profiling.
By contrast, Senator Scott's legislation merely
provides for information sharing among agencies, and
President Trump's Executive Order is limited to the
category of ``deadly use of force.''
Deadly Force--H.R. 7120 requires that deadly
force be used by federal officers only as a last resort
to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury and
conditions grants on state and local law enforcement
agencies doing the same while also establishing duty to
intervene standards; and setting up a data collection
system; while Senator Scott's bill and the President's
Executive Order merely require states to report cases
of use of force that leads to death or serious injury.
Senator Scott's bill does seek to develop a duty to
intervene standard as well.
Transfer of Military Equipment--H.R. 7120
limits the transfer of military-grade equipment to
state and local law enforcement, while both Senator
Scott's bill and Trump's Executive Order leave the
status quo in place.
Body Cameras--H.R. 7120 requires federal
uniformed police officers to wear body cameras and
marked federal police vehicles to have dashboard
cameras and incentivizes states to do the same (so long
as the dashboard cameras and body cameras do not employ
facial recognition technology), while Senator Scott's
bill merely incentivizes their use at the state and
local level while ignoring the concern about facial
recognition technology and President Trump's Executive
Order ignores the issue entirely.
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress, the following hearing was used to consider H.R.
7120: Hearing on ``Policing Practices and Law Enforcement
Accountability'' held before the full Committee on June 10,
2020, during which there was extensive discussion of H.R. 7120.
The witnesses were Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police
Department and President, Major City Chiefs Association; Paul
Butler, Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown University
Law Center; Benjamin Crump, Attorney for the Family of George
Floyd; Ron Davis, National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives; Philonise Floyd, Brother of George
Floyd; Phillip Goff, Franklin A. Thomas Professor of Policing
Equality, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and President,
Center for Policing Equity; Vanita Gupta, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights; Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and Marc Morial, President,
National Urban League; Daniel Bongino, Political Commentator
and Former Secret Service Agent; Darrell Scott, Pastor and Co-
Founder, New Spirit Revival Center; and Angela Underwood
Jacobs, Sister of Federal Protective Officer David Underwood.
Committee Consideration
On June 17, 2020, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 7120, favorably reported as an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, by a rollcall vote of 24 to 14,
a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 7120:
1. An amendment by Mr. Armstrong to add a section regarding
audio recording of interviews conducted by certain federal law
enforcement officers was defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to
25.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. An amendment by Mr. Reschenthaler to add a section
regarding findings and study regarding Antifa was defeated by a
rollcall vote of 13 to 25.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
3. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to strike page 135 lines 16-
35 and insert ``Whoever commits murder in the commission of a
kidnaping shall be punished by any term of years including life
or death'' was defeated by a rollcall vote of 15 to 23.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
4. An amendment by Mr. Buck to strike section 102 was
defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to 23.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
5. An amendment by Ms. Lesko to add a section regarding
prohibition of autonomous zones was defeated by a rollcall vote
of 12 to 23.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
6. An amendment by Mr. Steube to strike section 365 was
defeated by a rollcall vote of 10 to 24.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
7. An amendment by Mr. Gaetz to add a section regarding a
study on no-knock warrants was defeated by a rollcall vote of
12 to 24.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
8. An amendment by Mr. Cline to add a section on
limitations on collective bargaining agreements was defeated by
a rollcall vote of 12 to 23.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
9. An amendment by Mr. Steube to strike section 362 was
defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to 25.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
10. An amendment by Mr. Gaetz to strike subparagraph A on
page 85 and strike line 23 on page 86 was defeated by a
rollcall vote of 14 to 24.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
11. An amendment by Mr. Biggs to add a section regarding
de-escalation tactics and techniques was defeated by a rollcall
vote of 9 to 26.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
12. An amendment by Ms. Lesko to add a section on no COPS
grants for jurisdictions that defund the police was defeated by
a rollcall vote of 13 to 25.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
13. Motion to report H.R. 7120, as amended, favorably was
agreed to by a rollcall vote of 24 to 14.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional Budget
Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 7120 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the federal government known to be duplicative of
another federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
7120 would create new statutory provisions and amend existing
statutes to ensure greater accountability for and transparency
of law enforcement uses of force, create uniform standards, and
ensure better training for law enforcement to minimize the risk
of unnecessary or excessive uses of force, and study possible
public safety innovations.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 7120 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. Section 1 sets
forth the short title ``George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of
2020'' and contains the table of contents.
Section 2. Definitions. Section 2 contains the definitions
used under the Act.
Title I--Police Accountability
SUBTITLE A--HOLDING POLICE ACCOUNTABLE IN THE COURTS
Section 101. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Section 101 amends 18 U.S.C. 242, a criminal statute under
which law enforcement officers can be charged for willful
violation of rights under color of law. Section 101(1) changes
the statute's mens rea requirement from ``willfully'' to
``knowingly or recklessly.'' Section 101(2) strikes the death
penalty from the sentences currently permitted under 18 U.S.C.
242. Section 101(3) adds a new sentence to the end of the
statute that defines an act under 18 U.S.C. 242 to be
considered to have resulted in death if the act was a
substantial factor contributing to the death of the person.
Section 102. Qualified Immunity Reform. Section 102 amends
42 U.S.C. 1983, a statute that allows individuals to bring suit
for harms resulting from a deprivation of a constitutional
right, to prohibit law enforcement officers from asserting a
defense or immunity that (1) the defendant was acting in good
faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise,
that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct
was committed; or (2) the rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws were not clearly
established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant,
or that at such time, the state of the law was otherwise such
that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to
know whether his or her conduct was lawful.
Section 103. Pattern and Practice Investigations. Section
103 amends 34 U.S.C. 12601, a statute that prohibits a
government authority or official from engaging in a pattern or
practice of conduct that deprives persons of their
constitutional rights and permits the Attorney General to file
a civil action to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Section 103(a)(1) adds language making explicit the
existing understanding and practice that 34 U.S.C. 12601(a)
prohibits prosecutors from engaging in a pattern or practice of
conduct that deprives persons of their constitutional rights.
Section 103(a)(2) amends section 34 U.S.C. 12601(b) by
changing a reference to paragraph (1) to subsection (a).
Section 103(a)(3) creates new subsections (c) through (f)
under 34 U.S.C. 12601:
New subsection (c) provides the Attorney General with
subpoena authority to carry out pattern or practice
investigations under 34 U.S.C. 12601(b).
New subsection (d) permits state attorneys general or other
such official as a state may designate to bring a civil action
in the appropriate federal district court to obtain appropriate
equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or
practice, and grants states attorneys general or official
carrying out the authority in this subsection the same subpoena
authority granted to the Attorney General under new subsection
(c).
New subsection (e) adds a rule of construction stating that
nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority
of the Attorney General under 34 U.S.C. 12601(b) in any case in
which a state attorney general brought a civil action under new
subsection (d).
New subsection (f) adds a requirement that one year after
the date of enactment and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights
Division shall make publicly available on an internet website a
report on, during the previous year: (1) the number of
preliminary investigations of violations of subsection (a) that
were commenced; (2) the number of preliminary investigations of
violations of subsection (a) that were resolved; and (3) the
status of any pending investigations of violations of
subsection (a).
Section 103(b)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to award
grants to assist a state in conducting pattern and practice
investigations under 34 U.S.C. 12601. Grants authorized under
this subsection may be used only to investigate a pattern or
practice of misconduct by law enforcement officers, including
prosecutor's offices, or by officials or employees of any
governmental agency with responsibility for the administration
of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles.
Section 103(b)(2) requires that a state seeking a grant
under paragraph (1) must submit an application in such form, at
such time, and containing such information required by the
Attorney General.
Section(b)(3) authorizes an appropriation of $100M to the
Attorney General for each of FY 2021 through 2023 to carry out
this subsection.
Section 103(c) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602, a statute that
permits the Attorney General, through appropriate means, to
collect data about the use of excessive force by law
enforcement officers.
Section 103(c)(1)(A) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(a) to create a
new subsection (a)(1) by striking Attorney General and
inserting ``(1) Federal Collection of Data--Attorney General.''
Section 103(c)(1)(B) also amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(a) by
adding a new subparagraph (2) to permit state attorneys
general, through appropriate means, to acquire data about the
use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and to allow
such data to be used in conducting pattern or practice
investigations permitted under 34 U.S.C. 12601. It also
prohibits data collected under this paragraph from containing
any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or
any law enforcement officers.
Section 103(c)(2) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(b), which limits
the use of data acquired by the Attorney General under 34
U.S.C. 12602(a), to reference new subsection (a)(1).
Section 104. Independent Investigations. Section 104
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to eligible
states and Indian Tribes to assist in implementing independent
investigation of law enforcement statute. It also amends 34
U.S.C. 10381 et seq. to permit the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) program to fund grants to develop best
practices for and to create civilian review boards.
Section 104(a)(1) contains definitions that apply in this
subsection.
Section 104(a)(2) authorizes the Attorney General to award
grants to eligible states or Indian Tribes under this
subsection. Grants authorized under this subsection may be used
only to implement such a statute or conduct independent
investigations into the use of deadly force by law enforcement
officers.
Section 104(a)(3) requires a state or Indian Tribe to have
in effect an independent investigation of law enforcement
statute to be eligible for a grant under this subsection.
Section 104(a)(4) authorizes an appropriation to the
Attorney General of $750M for FY 2021 through 2023 to carry out
this subsection.
Section 104(b) amends 34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq. to permit the
COPS program to fund grants to develop best practices for and
to create civilian review boards.
SUBTITLE B--LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST AND INTEGRITY ACT
Section 111. Short Title. Section 111 sets forth the short
title of the subtitle as the ``Law Enforcement Trust and
Integrity Act of 2020.''
Section 112. Definitions. Section 112 contains the
definitions used under the subtitle.
Section 113. Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.
Section 113 requires the Attorney General to study existing law
enforcement accreditation standards nationwide and then
recommend the adoption of additional standards that will result
in greater community accountability of law enforcement
agencies.
Section 113(a)(1) requires the Attorney General to perform
an analysis of existing law enforcement accreditation standards
developed by law enforcement accreditation organizations
nationwide.
Section 113(a)(2)(A) requires the Attorney General,
following the completion of the analysis described in section
113(a)(1), to recommend in consultation with law enforcement
accreditation organizations and community-based organizations,
the adoption of additional standards that will result in
greater community accountability of law enforcement agencies
and an increased focus on policing with a guardian mentality.
Included must be standards related to early warning systems and
related intervention programs; use of force procedures;
civilian review procedures; traffic and pedestrian stop and
search procedures; data collection and transparency;
administrative due process requirements; video monitoring
technology; youth justice and school safety; and recruitment,
hiring, and training.
Section 113(a)(2)(B) also requires the Attorney General to
recommend additional areas for the development of national
standards for the accreditation of law enforcement agencies in
consultation with existing law enforcement accreditation
organizations, professional law enforcement associations, labor
organizations, and professional civilian oversight
organizations.
Section 113(a)(3) requires the Attorney General to adopt
policies and procedures to partner with existing law
enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law
enforcement associations, labor organizations, and professional
civilian oversight organizations to continue development of
further accreditation standards consistent with Section
113(a)(2)(b); to encourage the pursuit of accreditation of
federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies by
certified law enforcement accreditation organizations; and to
develop recommendations for implementation of a national
accreditation requirement tied to federal grant eligibility.
Section 113(b) amends 34 U.S.C. 10153(a) to add a new
paragraph (7) that requires that a grant application made under
this part include an assurance that for each fiscal year
covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than
5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal
year to assist law enforcement agencies of the applicant,
including campus public safety departments, gain or maintain
accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation
organizations in accordance with section 113 of the Law
Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.
Section 114. Law Enforcement Grants. Section 114(a) amends
34 U.S.C. 10153(a), as amended by section 113, by adding a new
paragraph (8) that requires that a grant application made under
this part include an assurance that for each fiscal year
covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than
5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal
year to study and implement effective management, training,
recruiting, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to
promote effective community and problem solving strategies for
law enforcement agencies in accordance with section 114 of the
Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.
Section 114(b) authorizes the Attorney General to make
grants to community-based organizations to study and implement
(1) effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and
oversight standards and programs to promote effective community
and problem solving strategies for law enforcement agencies; or
(2) effective strategies and solutions to public safety,
including strategies that do not rely on federal and local law
enforcement agency response.
Section 114(c) requires that grant amounts described in new
paragraph (8) added to 34 U.S.C. 10153(a) by section 114(a) and
grant amounts awarded under section 114(b) of this section be
used to: (1) study management and operations standards for law
enforcement agencies, including standards relating to
administrative due process, residency requirements,
compensation and benefits, use of force, racial profiling,
early warning and intervention systems, youth justice, school
safety, civil review boards or analogous procedures, or
research into the effectiveness of existing programs, projects,
or other activities designed to address misconduct and (2) to
develop pilot program and implement effective standards and
programs in the areas of training, hiring and recruitment, and
oversight that are designed to improve management and address
misconduct by law enforcement officers.
Section 114(d) requires that a pilot program developed
under section 114(c)(2) include implementation of the
following: (1) Training; (2) Recruitment, Hiring, Retention,
and Promotion of Diverse Law Enforcement Officers; (3)
Oversight; (4) Youth Justice and School Safety; and (5) Victim
Services.
Section 114(e) permits (1) the Attorney general to provide
technical assistance to states and community-based
organizations in furtherance of this section; and (2) the
technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may
include the development of models for states and community-
based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer
misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in
consultation with community-based organizations.
Section 114(f) permits the Attorney General to use any
component or components of the Department of Justice in
carrying out this section.
Section 114(g) requires an application for a grant under
114(b) to be submitted in such form and contain such
information as the Attorney General may prescribe by rule.
Section 114(h) requires each program, project, or activity
funded under this section to contain a monitoring component,
which shall be developed pursuant to rules made by the Attorney
General.
Section 114(i) permits the Attorney General, as a result of
monitoring under section 114(h) or otherwise, to revoke or
suspend funding of a grant made under the Byrne grant program
or under section 114(b) if the Attorney General determines that
the grant is not in substantial compliance with the
requirements of this section.
Section 114(j) defines for the purposes of this section the
term ``civilian review board.''
Section 114(k) authorizes an appropriation to the Attorney
General of $25M for Fiscal Year 2021 to carry out the grant
program authorized under section 114(b).
Section 115. Attorney General to Conduct Study. Section
115(a)(1) requires the Attorney General to conduct a nationwide
study of the prevalence and effect of any law, rule, or
procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to delay the
response to questions posed by local internal affairs officer,
or review board on the investigative integrity and prosecution
of law enforcement misconduct, including pre-interview warnings
and termination policies. As part of the study, the Attorney
General is required to conduct an initial analysis as described
in section 115(a)(2) followed by a nationwide data collection
as described in section 115(a)(3). Section 115(b)(1) requires
the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress and the
public 120 days after enactment containing the results of the
initial analysis prescribed by this section and identify the
jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Section
115(b)(2) requires the Attorney General not less than 2 years
after enactment to submit a report to Congress containing the
results of the data collection prescribed under this section
and publish the report in the Federal Register.
Section 116. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 116
authorizes for fiscal year 2021, in addition to any other sums
authorized to be appropriated: (1) $25M for additional expenses
related to the enforcement of 34 U.S.C. 12601, criminal
enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, and administrative
enforcement by the Department of Justice of such sections,
including compliance with consent decrees or judgments; and (2)
$3.3M for additional expenses related to conflict resolution by
the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service.
Section 117. National Task Force on Law Enforcement
Oversight. Section 117(a) establishes within the Department of
Justice a Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight. Section
117(b) requires that the Task Force be composed of individuals
appointed by the Attorney General who is required to appoint
not less than 1 individual from the DOJ components described
under this section. Section 117(c) outlines the powers and
duties of the Task Force and requires that it consult with
professional law enforcement associations, labor organizations,
and community-based organizations to coordinate the process of
the detection and referral of complaints regarding incidents of
alleged law enforcement misconduct. Section 117(d) authorizes
an appropriation of $5M for each fiscal year to carry out this
section.
Section 118. Federal Data Collection Law Enforcement
Practices. Section 118(a) requires each federal, state, tribal,
and local law enforcement agency to report data of the
practices enumerated in section 118(c) of that agency to the
Attorney General.
Section 118(b) requires that for each practice enumerated
in section 118(c), the reporting law enforcement agency must
provide a breakdown of the number of incidents of that practice
by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers of the
agency and of members of the public involved in the practice.
Section 118(c) enumerates the practices to be reported to
the Attorney General.
Section 118(d) requires that each law enforcement agency
required to report data under this section must maintain
records relating to any matter reported for 4 years after the
creation of the records.
Section 118(e) enacts a penalty on states for failing to
report as required under this section. A state shall not
receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that
state under 34 U.S.C. 10156(a) or any amount from any other DOJ
law enforcement assistance program unless the state has assured
to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the state and
each of its local law enforcement agencies is in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this section.
Section 118(f) authorizes the Attorney General to prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
Title II--Policing Transparency Through Data
SUBTITLE A--MISCONDUCT REGISTRY
Section 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct
Registry. Section 201(a) requires the Attorney General not less
than 180 days after enactment of this Act to establish a
National Police Misconduct Registry to be compiled and
maintained by the Department of Justice.
Section 201(b) sets forth the contents of the registry.
With respect to all federal and local law enforcement officers,
the registry must contain:
(1) each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer
aggregated by (A) complaints found credible or that resulted in
disciplinary action against the officer; (B) complaints that
are pending review; and (C) complaints for which the officer
was exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded or not
sustained. All complaints must be disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
(2) Discipline records disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
(3) Termination records, including the reason for each
termination, by whether the complaint involved a use of force
or racial profiling.
(4) Records of certification in accordance with Section
202.
(5) Records of lawsuits against law enforcement officers
and settlements of such lawsuits.
Section 201(c) requires that the head of each federal law
enforcement agency shall submit to the Attorney General the
information described in Section 201(b) not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months
thereafter.
Section 201(d) requires a state that receives funds under
the Byrne grant program to submit the information described
under 201(b) for the state and each local law enforcement
agency within the state to the Attorney General every 180 days
beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date
that is one year after the enactment of this Act and each
fiscal year thereafter in which the state receives funds under
the Byrne grant program.
Section 201(e) requires the Attorney General to make the
registry available to the public on a website of the Attorney
General in a manner that allows the public to search an
individual law enforcement officer's records of misconduct as
described in Section 201(b) involving the use of force or
racial profiling. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to supersede the requirements or limitations under the Privacy
Act of 1974.
Section 202. Certification Requirements for Hiring of Law
Enforcement Officers. Section 202(a) states that a state or
unit of local government, other than an Indian Tribe, may not
receive funds under the Byrne grant program for that fiscal
year if, on the day before that first day of the fiscal year,
the state or unit of local government has not: (1) submitted to
the Attorney General evidence that the state or unit of local
government has a certification or decertification program for
the purposes of employment as a law enforcement officer in that
state or unit of local government; and (2) submitted to the
registry established under section 201 records demonstrating
that all law enforcement officers of the state or unit of local
government have completed all state certification requirements
during the 1 year period preceding the fiscal year.
Section 202(b) requires the Attorney General to make
available to law enforcement agencies all information in the
registry under section 201 for purposes of compliance with
certification and decertification programs described in section
202(a) and considering applications of employment.
Section 202 (c) authorizes the Attorney General to make
rules to carry out section 202 and section 201, including
uniform reporting standards.
SUBTITLE B--POLICE REPORTING INFORMATION DATA AND EVIDENCE (PRIDE) ACT
Section 221. Short title. Section 221 sets forth the short
title of this subtitle as the ``Police Reporting Information,
Data, and Evidence Act of 2020'' or ``PRIDE Act of 2020''.
Section 222. Definitions. Section 222 sets forth
definitions of various terms used in this subtitle.
Section 223. Use of Force Reporting. Section 223(a)
requires any state or Indian tribe receiving Byrne grant funds
to report to the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, any
incident involving use of deadly force or shooting against a
civilian by a state, local, or tribal law enforcement officer
employed by the grant recipient jurisdiction, any incident
involving the death or arrest of an officer, any incident
involving use of force by or against an officer, any death in
custody, and any use of force in arrests and bookings. Also
requires a grant recipient to establish a system and policies
to ensure that all use of force incidents are reported by
state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and that they
submit to the Attorney General a plan for the required data
collection.
The report must contain at least the following information:
(1) the national origin, race, sex, ethnicity, age, disability,
English language proficiency, and housing status of each
civilian against whom state, local, or tribal law enforcement
officer used force; (2) the date, time, and location, including
whether on school grounds, and zip code of the incident and
whether the jurisdiction allows for open-carry or concealed-
carry of a firearm; (3) whether the civilian was armed and, if
so, the type of weapon the civilian had; (4) the type of force
and weapons used against either the officer or the civilian;
(5) the reason force was used; (6) a description of injuries
sustained because of the incident; (7) the number of officers
involved in the incident; and (9) a brief description of the
circumstances surrounding the incident. A grant recipient
jurisdiction is not required to include in this report an
incident reported pursuant to 34 USC 12105(a)(2)). Each law
enforcement agency reporting data under this section must
maintain records relating to any reportable matter for a
minimum of 4 years. In addition, prior to submitting a report,
the jurisdiction must compare the information with publicly
available sources and revise the report if any incident is
determined to be missing.
Section 223(a) further requires that each grant recipient
jurisdiction must conduct an annual audit of its use-of-force
incident reporting system and submit a report on the audit to
the Attorney General.
Section 223(b) reduces by up to 10 percent any amount of
Byrne grant funds that a jurisdiction would have received
should it fail to comply with the reporting requirements of
Section 223(a). That money must instead be reallocated to other
jurisdictions that have complied with those requirements. A
grant recipient jurisdiction must also ensure that schools and
local education agencies provide the required information to
the jurisdiction regarding school resources officers.
Section 223(c) requires the Attorney General to publish and
make publicly available a report containing the data required
to be reported to the Attorney General under Section 223,
subject to privacy protections, and further requires the
Attorney General to issue guidance on best practices related to
establishing standard data collection systems for the required
information.
Section 224. Use of Force Data Reporting. Section 224
allows the Attorney General to make grants available to local
law enforcement agencies to cover the costs of compliance with
Section 223, public awareness campaigns on use of force by or
against law enforcement officers, and use of force training for
law enforcement agencies and personnel. To be eligible for a
grant under this section, the agency must be in a jurisdiction
that receives Byrne grant funding, employ 100 or fewer
officers, demonstrate that its use of force policy is publicly
available, and establish and maintain a complaint system that
meets certain requirements.
Section 225. Compliance with Reporting Requirements.
Section 225 requires the Attorney General to conduct an audit
and review of the information provided by grant recipient
jurisdictions pursuant to Section 223. Any data reported must
be collected and reported consistent with existing Justice
Department data collection programs regarding police-civilian
encounters and with civil rights laws governing public
dissemination of information. It also requires the Attorney
General to issue guidelines for the Section 223 reporting
requirement and to seek public comment on those guidelines
before issuing them.
Section 226. Federal Law Enforcement Reporting. Section 226
requires each federal law enforcement agency to submit the
information outlined in Section 223 to the Attorney General on
a quarterly basis.
Section 227. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 227
authorizes appropriations to carry out this subtitle.
Title III--Improving Police Training and Policies
SUBTITLE A--END RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS PROFILING ACT
Section 301. Short Title. Section 301 sets forth the short
title of Subtitle A of Title III as the ``End Racial and
Religious Profiling Act of 2020,'' or ``ERRPA.''
Section 302. Definitions. Section 302 provides definitions
used within ERRPA. Among other things, subsection 302(6)
defines ``racial profiling'' to include any reliance by law
enforcement on a person's ``actual or perceived race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity,
or sexual orientation'' in making decisions with respect to law
enforcement activity. Section 302 provides exceptions where
relevant and trustworthy information links a person with a
particular characteristic described, and for purposes of tribal
law enforcement officers making jurisdictional determinations.
Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling
Section 311. Prohibition. Section 311 prohibits all
federal, state, and local law enforcement agents and agencies
from engaging in racial profiling.
Section 312. Enforcement. Section 312 provides a cause of
action for the United States or any injured individual to
enforce this prohibition. It also provides that a disparate
impact on individuals with characteristics defined in
subsection 302(6) constitutes prima facie evidence of racial
profiling. Finally, it permits prevailing plaintiffs other than
the United States to obtain attorney's fees.
Part II--Programs to Eliminate Racial Profiling by Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies
Section 321. Policies to Eliminate Racial Profiling.
Section 321 requires federal law enforcement agencies to
maintain policies prohibiting racial profiling, including by
providing adequate training, collecting relevant data in
accordance with Section 341, and implementing procedures to
investigate and respond to allegations of racial profiling.
Part III--Programs to Eliminate Racial Profiling by State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies
Section 331. Policies Required for Grants. Section 331
requires any state or local entity applying for a grant under
any covered program (defined in subsection 302(1) to include
any Byrne grant program or any COPS grant program) to certify
that the recipient maintains adequate policies prohibiting
racial profiling. Such policies must, among other things,
provide for adequate training and collection of relevant data
in accordance with Section 341, and include participation in a
complaint or audit program to investigate and respond to
allegations of racial profiling.
Section 332. Involvement of Attorney General. Section 332
requires the Attorney General within six months of enactment to
issue regulations regarding complaint procedures and auditing
programs to respond to allegations of racial profiling. It also
directs the Attorney General to withhold funds from grant
recipients that fail to comply and requires the Attorney
General to create a mechanism by which private parties may
present evidence that a recipient is not in compliance.
Section 333. Data Collection Demonstration Project. Section
333 creates a $5 million grant program for technical assistance
for up to five recipients to engage in data collection
regarding law enforcement agencies' ``hit rates'' (defined in
subsection 302(3) as the percentage of stops and searches that
yield contraband), disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, and religion. This section also authorizes
$500,000 for the Attorney General to conduct an evaluation of
the data collected by grantees.
Section 334. Development of Best Practices. Section 334
requires applications for Byrne grants to include an assurance
that the applicant will use at least 10 percent of the grant
award to develop best practices to eliminate racial profiling.
Section 335. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 335
authorizes funds to the Attorney General as necessary to
implement this part.
Part IV--Data Collection
Section 341. Attorney General to Issue Regulations. Section
341 requires the Attorney General within six months of
enactment to issue regulations for the collection of relevant
data from federal, state, and local law enforcement entities,
as provided in sections 321 and 331. It requires, among other
things, that the regulations provide for collection of data
regarding routine and spontaneous investigatory activities;
that the data be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, disability, and religion; and that the data
contain sufficient detail to permit an analysis of whether a
law enforcement agency is engaging in racial profiling. It also
requires law enforcement agencies to maintain this data for at
least four years and requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics
to analyze the data for certain statistical disparities and to
publish an annual report of its findings, beginning three years
after enactment.
Section 342. Publication of Data. Section 342 requires the
Bureau of Justice Statistics to provide the data collected
under this subtitle to Congress and to the public, together
with the report required under Section 341, excluding any
personally identifiable information.
Section 343. Limitations on Publication of Data. Section
343 prohibits disclosure of the names or identifying
information of law enforcement agents, complainants, or other
individuals except under certain specified circumstances. It
exempts this information from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act, except for disclosures of information
regarding a particular person to that person.
Part V--Department of Justice Regulations and Reports on Racial
Profiling in the United States
Section 351. Attorney General to Issue Regulations and
Reports. Section 351 requires the Attorney General to issue
such other regulations as may be necessary and requires the
Attorney General to issue an annual report to Congress on
racial profiling, beginning two years after enactment. The
report must include, among other things, a summary of the data
collected by the Attorney General from federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies, the status of policies to
eliminate racial profiling, and a description of any other
policies the Attorney General believes would facilitate the
elimination of racial profiling.
SUBTITLE B--ADDITIONAL REFORMS
Section 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene.
Section 361(a) Requires the Attorney General to establish a
training program for law enforcement officers to cover racial
profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice. It also
requires the Attorney General to establish a duty for federal
law enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another
officer uses excessive force and requires training program for
this duty to intervene. Section 361(b) requires each federal
law enforcement officer to complete the training programs
established under subsection (a). Section 361(c) conditions
Byrne grants for state and local governments on those
jurisdictions requiring law enforcement officers to complete
the training programs established under subsection (a). Section
361(d) allows grants for training programs for law enforcement
officers on use of force and duty to intervene.
Section 362. Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases.
Section 362(a) amends the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit
no-knock warrants by federal law enforcement officers in a drug
case. Section 362(b) conditions COPS grants to state and local
governments on their having in effect a law that prohibits the
issuance of a no-knock warrant in a drug case. Section 362(c)
defines ``no-knock warrant'' as a warrant that allows a law
enforcement officer to enter a property without announcing the
presence of the officer or the intention of the officer to
enter the property.
Section 363. Incentivizing Banning of Chokeholds and
Carotid Holds. Section 363(a) defines ``chokehold or carotid
hold'' to mean the application of any pressure to the throat or
windpipe, the use of maneuvers restricting blood or oxygen flow
to the brain, or carotid artery restraints that prevent or
hinder breathing or reduce intake of air. Section 363(b)
conditions Byrne grants and COPS grants for state and local
governments on that state and local government having in effect
a law prohibiting law enforcement officers from using a
chokehold or carotid hold. Section 363(c) amends 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 242 to define ``chokehold or carotid hold'' as a
``punishment, pain, or penalty.'' Section 242 makes it a
federal crime to, among other things, willfully subject someone
to such ``punishments, pains, or penalties.''
Section 364. PEACE Act. Section 364(a) sets forth the short
title of this section as the ``Police Exercising Absolute Care
with Everyone Act of 2020'' or ``PEACE Act of 2020.'' Section
364(b) establishes a use-of-force standard for federal law
enforcement officers. Section 364(b)(1) provides definitions of
various terms as used in this section. Section 364(b)(2)
prohibits a federal law enforcement officer from using less
lethal force unless such force is necessary and proportional in
order to effectuate an arrest of a person who the officer has
probable cause to believe has committed a crime and reasonable
alternatives to the less lethal force have been exhausted.
Section 364(b)(3) prohibits a federal law enforcement
officer from using deadly force unless the use of deadly force
is necessary as a last resort to prevent imminent and serious
bodily injury, the use of such force does not create a
substantial risk of injury to a third person, and reasonable
alternatives have been exhausted.
Section 364(b)(4) requires a federal law enforcement
officer, when feasible, to identify himself or herself as a
federal law enforcement officer and give a verbal warning prior
to using force. The warning must include a request that the
suspect surrender and notify that person that the officer will
use force if the person resists arrest or flees.
Section 364(b)(5) requires the Attorney General to issue
guidance to federal law enforcement agencies on types of less
lethal and deadly force prohibited by this section and ways the
officer can assess whether use of force is appropriate and
necessary and use the least amount of force when interacting
with certain types of individuals. Section 364(b)(6) requires
the Attorney General to provide training for federal law
enforcement officers on how to interact with these categories
of individuals.
Section 364(b)(7) disallows a federal law enforcement
officer to raise the justification defense in a civil rights
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1111 or 1112 if that
officer's use of force violates the standards set forth in
Section 364(b) or the officer's gross negligence contributed to
the necessity to use such force.
Section 364(c) conditions a state or local government's
receipt of Byrne grant funds on the jurisdiction having in
effect a law setting forth the same use-of-force standards
provided in Section 364(b). A jurisdiction that has had funds
withheld and then subsequently enacts a law conforming with
this requirement and demonstrates substantial efforts to
enforce such a law, would once again be eligible in the follow
fiscal year the total amount of funds that were withheld,
subject to a 5-fiscal-year cap. Finally, the Attorney General
is required to issue guidance to state and local governments on
the criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction has enacted
law conforming with this section.
Section 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. Section
365(a) contains findings regarding the transfer of military
equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Section 365(b)
restricts the Defense Department program allowing transfer of
equipment to local law enforcement agencies by striking
``counterdrug'' and ``border security activities'' as
permissible uses for such property. It also adds new conditions
for transfer of such property to a local law enforcement
agency, including that the recipient submits to the Department
a description of how it expects to use the property; the
recipient certifies that if the property exceed the recipient's
needs, it will return the property to the Department; the
recipient certifies that it has notified the local community of
the request for the property; and the recipient has received
the approval of the local governing body to acquire the
property sought from the Department. Section 365(b) also
strikes the existing preference for counterdrug,
counterterrorism, and border security uses by the recipient
agency.
Section 365(b) also requires the Secretary of Defense to
certify annually that each recipient agency has provided the
Secretary a documented accounting for all controlled property,
including arms and ammunition, and carried out the bill's other
certification requirements. It also requires the Secretary to
submit an annual report to Congress describing property to be
transferred with a certification that the transfer will not be
unlawful. It also prohibits certain types of items from being
transferred, including controlled firearms, ammunition, grenade
launchers, grenades, and explosives; controlled vehicles,
trucks, highly mobile multi-wheeled vehicles, mine-resistant
ambush-protected vehicles; drones; controlled aircraft that are
combat configured or have no commercial use; silencers; and
long-range acoustic devices. It prohibits the Secretary from
requiring that a recipient agency demonstrate the use of any
small arms or ammunition, and clarifies that the bill's various
limitations also apply to property previously transferred by
the Defense Department to an agency from that agency to
another. This section, however, allows the Secretary to waive
the annual certification requirement under certain emergency
circumstances. It also prohibits the extension of the military
property transfer program unless the Secretary certifies to
Congress that: each recipient of controlled property under the
program has demonstrated complete accountability for all such
property or has been suspended from the program and also
certifies that various other actions related to accounting for
such property have been taken, and that any recipient for which
100 percent of the property was not accounted for has been
suspended from the program. Also, no recipient agency may take
ownership of any property transferred under the surplus
military property program. Finally, Section 365 requires the
Secretary to make a number of reports to Congress regarding
various aspects of the property transfer program.
Section 366. Public Safety Innovation Grants. Section
366(a) amends the Byrne grant program statute by adding a new
provision concerning local task forces on public safety
innovation. That provision states that a law enforcement
program eligible to receive Byrne grants may include the
development of best practices for and the creation of local
task forces on public safety innovation, charged with exploring
and developing new strategies for public safety, including non-
law enforcement strategies. This section also defines ``local
task force on public safety innovation'' to mean an
``administrative entity, created from partnerships between
community-based organizations and other local stakeholders,
that may develop innovative law enforcement and non-law
enforcement strategies to enhance just and equitable public
safety, repair breaches of trust between law enforcement
agencies and the community they pledge to serve, and enhance
accountability of law enforcement officers.''
Section 366(b) adds a requirement of a report on best
practices for crisis intervention as part of a program
assessment of crisis intervention teams.
Section 366(c) adds as a permissible use of COPS grants the
recruitment, hiring, retention and training of law enforcement
officers who live in or are willing to relocate to (1)
communities where relations between police and community
residents are poor or where there is a high incidence of crime
and (2) are the communities or close to the communities where
these officers serve. Such grants may also be used to collect
data on the number of officers willing to relocate to
communities where they serve and whether such relocations have
impacted crime in those communities, and to develop and
publicly report strategies and timelines for recruiting,
hiring, promoting, and retaining a diverse and inclusive law
enforcement workforce.
SUBTITLE C--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY CAMERAS
Part I--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act
Section 371. Short Title. Section 371 sets forth the short
title of this part as the ``Federal Police Camera and
Accountability Act.''
Section 372. Requirements for Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Regarding the Use of Body Cameras. Section 372(a) sets
forth definitions for various terms used in this part. Section
372(b)(1) requires federal law enforcement officers to wear a
body camera. Section 372(b)(2) sets forth the minimum
requirements for the camera. Section 372(c) sets forth the
requirement that the body camera's video and audio functions be
activated whenever a federal law enforcement officer responds
to a service call or at the initiation of any other law
enforcement or investigative stop involving a member of the
public, except when an imminent threat to the officer's life or
safety makes activating the camera impossible or dangerous.
Under such circumstances, the officer must activate the camera
at the first reasonable opportunity. The officer may deactivate
the camera after the stop is concluded and the officer leaves
the scene.
Section 372(d) requires a federal law enforcement officer
to notify a subject of the recording that he or she is being
recorded by a body camera as close to the inception of the stop
as reasonably possible.
Section 372(e) outlines a number of additional requirements
with respect to a federal law enforcement officer's use of a
body camera with respect to giving notice to a subject of the
camera recording and an opportunity for the subject to have the
camera discontinue recording. Section 372(f) requires a
recording of each offer to discontinue body camera use.
Section 372(g) prohibits the use of body cameras to
``gather intelligence information based on First Amendment
protected speech, association, or religion, or to record
activity that is unrelated to'' a legitimate law enforcement
activity, and the body camera may not be equipped with or
employ any real time facial recognition technologies.
Section 372(h) outlines exceptions to the requirement that
a federal law enforcement officer wear a body camera.
Section 372(i) outlines footage retention requirements for
body cameras. It requires that the agency employing an officer
retain footage for 6 months after it is recorded, and then to
delete it permanently. During this 6-month period, certain
persons have a right to inspect the footage, including anyone
who is a subject of the footage or their legal counsel; the
parent or legal guardian of a minor subject or their legal
counsel; the spouse, next of kin, or legal authorized designee
of a deceased subject of the footage or their legal counsel;
the officer whose body camera recorded the footage or their
legal counsel; the officer's superior officer; or any defense
counsel who claims to have a reasonable basis for believing
that the footage contains exculpatory evidence. The right to
review the footage does not include the right to possess a copy
except when authorized.
Section 372(j) outlines additional retention and deletion
requirements for body camera footage, including minimum 3-year
retention if the footage captures any use of force or a stop
about which the subject of the footage has made a complaint.
The footage must be retained for at least 3 years when the
footage has been requested by an officer under certain
circumstances or by the subject of the footage, a parent or
legal guardian of a minor who is a subject of the footage, or a
deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized
designee.
Section 372(k) provides that any subject of footage, parent
or guardian of a minor subject, or deceased subject's next of
kin or legally authorized designee must be allowed to review
the specific footage to make a determination whether to request
a 3-year retention of the footage.
Section 372(l) provides that all video footage of an
interaction or event must be provided to any member of the
public making a request for it if the interaction or event is
identified with reasonable specificity. This section also
outlines a number of exceptions to this rule and prioritizes
requests for footage where the subject is killed, shot, or
grievously injured. It also allows for the use of redaction
technology to protect personal privacy of persons appearing in
the video footage.
Section 372(m) prohibits withholding body camera footage
from the public because it is an investigatory record if any
person under investigation is a police officer or other law
enforcement employee and the video relates to their official
capacity conduct. Section 372(n) provides that any footage
retained for six months as required by this part shall not be
admissible as evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding.
Section 372(o) prohibits public disclosure of body camera
footage unless expressly authorized by law. Sections 372(p) and
(q) place limitations on the use of body camera footage.
Section 372(r) prohibits a third-party agent who maintains body
camera footage from independently accessing, viewing, or
altering footage except to delete footage as required. Section
372(s) outlines disciplinary procedures for any federal law
enforcement officer or employee who fails to follow the
requirements regarding body camera recording or footage
retention. Section 372(t) provides that where an officer is
involved in, a witness to, or in viewable range of a use of
force by another officer that results in death, a firearm
discharge results in injury, or another officer's conduct
becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, the agency
must take possession of the camera and any data on it, a copy
of the data must be made, and the data must be made publicly
available according to the procedures outlined in Section
372(l). Section 372(u) limits footage that violates any law may
not be offered as evidence in any criminal or civil action
against a member of the public. Section 372(v) requires public
disclosure of any agency policy or guidance regarding the use
of body cameras or video footage. Section 372(w) is a rule of
construction providing that nothing in this part shall be
construed to preempt laws governing handling evidence in
criminal investigation and prosecutions.
Section 373. Patrol Vehicles With In-Car Video Recording
Cameras. Section 373(a) provides definitions to be used in this
section. Section 373(b) requires that each federal law
enforcement agency install in-car video camera recording
equipment in all patrol vehicles with certain recording
capabilities. It requires that the equipment be capable of
recording for 10 hours or more and that it record certain
specified activities, including whenever a patrol vehicle is
assigned to patrol duty, certain activities outside a patrol
vehicle, and inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee
or when the officer reasonably believes that recording may
assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for some other
lawful purpose. Section 373(b)(3) requires a federal law
enforcement officer to start recording at the start of an
enforcement or investigative stop until the stop is completed
and either the officer or the subject has left the scene or
when the patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated. Section
373(c) requires that in-car camera footage must be retained for
at least 90 days and prohibits footage from being altered or
deleted during that time. Section 373(d) requires that audio or
video recordings be made available to the public under
administrative procedures. Finally, Section 373(e) requires an
agency to ensure proper maintenance and care of in-car cameras.
Section 374. Facial Recognition Technology. Section 374
prohibits a camera or recording device required or authorized
by this part from being equipped with or employing real time
facial recognition technology and also prohibits footage from
such camera or recording device from being subjected to such
technology.
Section 375. GAO Study. Section 375 requires the GAO to
conduct a study within one year of the date of enactment on
federal law enforcement officer training, vehicle pursuits, use
of force, and interaction with citizens, and to submit such
report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House
Oversight and Reform Committee, and the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Section 376. Regulations. Section 376 requires the Attorney
General to issue regulations to carry out this part.
Section 377. Rule of Construction. Section 377 provides
that nothing in this part be construed to impose any
requirement on a federal law enforcement officer outside of the
officer's course of duty.
Part 2--Police Camera Act
Section 381. Short title. Section 381 sets forth the short
title of the part as the ``Police Creating Accountability by
Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2020'' or the
``Police CAMERA Act of 2020.''
Section 382. Law Enforcement Body-Worn Camera Requirements.
Section 382(a) adds a new Byrne grant requirement for a state
or local government seeking a grant provide an assurance that
for each fiscal year covered by the application, the
jurisdiction will use at least 5 percent of the grant award for
the fiscal year to develop policies and protocols to comply
with the body camera requirements in Section 382(b).
Section 382(b) adds a new ``Part OO'' to Title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to govern
use of Byrne grant funds regarding body-worn cameras by state
and local law enforcement. It provides, in proposed new Section
3051, that funds provided pursuant to the requirement outlined
in Section 382(a) of the bill must be used to purchase or lease
body-worn cameras for use by state, local, and tribal law
enforcement officers, for expenses related to a body-worn
camera program, and to implement certain policies and
procedures. It also prohibits the use of expenses for facial
recognition technology.
The required policies and procedures for a grant for body-
worn cameras include adoption of data collection and retention
protocols before the use of body cameras; the development of
policies and protocols, with community input, for safe and
effective use of cameras; secure storage, handling, and
destruction of recorded data; the protection of privacy rights;
the release of recorded data from a body camera in accordance
with state open records laws; and making recorded data
available to prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other court
officers. The bill also specifies the issues that the data
collection and retention protocols must address, including
required uses, such as for the collection and reporting of
statistical data on use of force incidents disaggregated by
race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim, the number of
complaints filed against law enforcement officers, the
disposition of such complaints, and any other statistical
evidence. The protocols must also allow an individual to file a
complaint relating to an improper use of body cameras. Proposed
Section 3051 also limits use of body camera footage for officer
misconduct investigation to those cases where there is a
reasonable suspicion that the recording contains evidence of a
crime or for limited training purposes and prohibits transfer
of any recorded data by a grant recipient to another law
enforcement or intelligence agency, with certain exceptions for
criminal investigations and civil rights claims.
Proposed Section 3051 requires an audit of the use of funds
for body-worn cameras and the development of policies and
protocols for their use by grant recipients and requires each
grant recipient to file a report with the Director of the
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management. The Director, in
turn, must evaluate the policies and protocols of grantees and
take steps to ensure compliance with program requirements.
New proposed Section 3052 requires the Director to
establish a training toolkit for body-worn cameras. Section
3053 requires the Director to conduct a study within 2 years of
the date of enactment of this part on the efficacy of body-worn
cameras in deterring police excessive force; the impacts of
body-worn cameras on police accountability and transparency, on
responses to and adjudications of excessive force complaints,
and on evidence collection for criminal investigations; the
effects of body-worn cameras on the safety of both law
enforcement officers and the public; and on various other
issues relating to privacy, individual constitutional rights,
limitations on facial recognition technology, public access to
body camera footage, and law enforcement body camera use and
training. The Director must submit a report to Congress on the
study, including any policy recommendations, within 180 days
after the study is completed.
Title IV--Justice for Victims of Lynching Act
Section 401. Short title. Section 401 sets forth the short
title of Title IV as the ``Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act.''
Section 402. Findings. Section 402 contains findings
regarding lynching.
Section 403. Lynching. Section 403 adds at the end of title
18, chapter 13 of the United States Code a new Section 250,
making it a crime to conspire with another person to violate
existing federal hate crimes statutes.
Title V--Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 501. Severability. Section 501 provides that if any
provision of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act or
particular application of it is held to be unconstitutional,
the remainder of the Act or any other application shall not be
affected.
Section 502. Savings Clause. Section 502 provides that
nothing in the Act shall be construed: (1) to limit remedies
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or certain other statutes; affect any laws
that apply to an Indian Tribe because of its political status;
or waive an Indian Tribe's sovereign immunity without the
Tribe's consent.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, H.R. 5, as reported, are shown as follows:
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec.
241. Conspiracy against rights.
* * * * * * *
250. Lynching.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, [willfully] knowingly or recklessly
subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person
being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are
prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or
an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or
for life, or both[, or may be sentenced to death]. For purposes
of this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in
death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the
death of the person. For the purposes of this section, the
application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, use of
maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, or
carotid artery restraints which prevent or hinder breathing or
reduce intake of air is a punishment, pain, or penalty.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 250. Lynching
Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245,
247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same
manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if
the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation
is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not
more than 10 years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 51--HOMICIDE
Sec.
1111. Murder.
* * * * * * *
1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement
officers.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law
enforcement officers
(a) In General.--It is not a defense to an offense under
section 1111 or 1112 that the use of less lethal force or
deadly force by a Federal law enforcement officer was justified
if--
(1) that officer's use of use of such force was
inconsistent with section 364(b) of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act of 2020; or
(2) that officer's gross negligence, leading up to
and at the time of the use of force, contributed to the
necessity of the use of such force.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``deadly force'' and ``less lethal
force'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2
and section 364 of the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act of 2020; and
(2) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has
the meaning given such term in section 115.
* * * * * * *
----------
REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1979. Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer
for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia
shall be considered to be a statute of the District of
Columbia. It shall not be a defense or immunity in any action
brought under this section against a local law enforcement
officer (as such term is defined in section 2 of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020), or in any action under
any source of law against a Federal investigative or law
enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2680(h)
of title 28, United States Code), that--
(1) the defendant was acting in good faith, or that
the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that
his or her conduct was lawful at the time when the
conduct was committed; or
(2) the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws were not clearly established
at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or
that at such time, the state of the law was otherwise
such that the defendant could not reasonably have been
expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful.
* * * * * * *
----------
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXI--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Police Pattern or Practice
SEC. 210401. CAUSE OF ACTION.
(a) Unlawful Conduct.--It shall be unlawful for any
governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers, by
prosecutors, or by officials or employees of any governmental
agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile
justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons
of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil Action by Attorney General.--Whenever the Attorney
General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
[paragraph (1)] subsection (a) has occurred, the Attorney
General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a
civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
(c) Subpoena Authority.--In carrying out the authority in
subsection (b), the Attorney General may require by subpoena
the production of all information, documents, reports, answers,
records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium
(including electronically stored information), as well as any
tangible thing and documentary evidence, and the attendance and
testimony of witnesses necessary in the performance of the
Attorney General under subsection (b). Such a subpoena, in the
case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by
order of any appropriate district court of the United States.
(d) Civil Action by State Attorneys General.--Whenever it
shall appear to the attorney general of any State, or such
other official as a State may designate, that a violation of
subsection (a) has occurred within their State, the State
attorney general or official, in the name of the State, may
bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the
United States to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. In carrying out
the authority in this subsection, the State attorney general or
official shall have the same subpoena authority as is available
to the Attorney General under subsection (c).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General under
subsection (b) in any case in which a State attorney general
has brought a civil action under subsection (d).
(f) Reporting Requirements.--On the date that is one year
after the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
of 2020, and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice shall make publicly available on an
internet website a report on, during the previous year--
(1) the number of preliminary investigations of
violations of subsection (a) that were commenced;
(2) the number of preliminary investigations of
violations of subsection (a) that were resolved; and
(3) the status of any pending investigations of
violations of subsection (a).
SEC. 210402. DATA ON USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.
(a) Attorney General To Collect.--[The Attorney General]
(1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General
shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about
the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.
(2) State collection of data.--The attorney general
of a State may, through appropriate means, acquire data
about the use of excessive force by law enforcement
officers and such data may be used by the attorney
general in conducting investigations under section
210401. This data may not contain any information that
may reveal the identity of the victim or any law
enforcement officer.
[(b) Limitation on Use of Data.--Data acquired under this
section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes
and may not contain any information that may reveal the
identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.]
(b) Limitation on Use of Data Acquired by the Attorney
General.--Data acquired under subsection (a)(1) shall be used
only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain
any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or
any law enforcement officer.
(c) Annual Summary.--The Attorney General shall publish an
annual summary of the data acquired under this section.
* * * * * * *
----------
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
* * * * * * *
Part E--Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs
Subpart 1--Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 501. DESCRIPTION.
(a) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--From amounts made available to carry
out this subpart, the Attorney General may, in
accordance with the formula established under section
505, make grants to States and units of local
government, for use by the State or unit of local
government to provide additional personnel, equipment,
supplies, contractual support, training, technical
assistance, and information systems for criminal
justice, including for any one or more of the following
programs:
(A) Law enforcement programs.
(B) Prosecution and court programs.
(C) Prevention and education programs.
(D) Corrections and community corrections
programs.
(E) Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
(F) Planning, evaluation, and technology
improvement programs.
(G) Crime victim and witness programs (other
than compensation).
(H) Mental health programs and related law
enforcement and corrections programs, including
behavioral programs and crisis intervention
teams.
(I) Training programs for law enforcement
officers, including training programs on use of
force and a duty to intervene.
(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall be
construed to ensure that a grant under that paragraph
may be used for any purpose for which a grant was
authorized to be used under either or both of the
programs specified in section 500(b), as those programs
were in effect immediately before the enactment of this
paragraph.
(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--
(A) In general.--A law enforcement program
under paragraph (1)(A) may include the
development of best practices for and the
creation of local task forces on public safety
innovation, charged with exploring and
developing new strategies for public safety,
including non-law enforcement strategies.
(B) Definition.--The term ``local task force
on public safety innovation'' means an
administrative entity, created from
partnerships between community-based
organizations and other local stakeholders,
that may develop innovative law enforcement and
non-law enforcement strategies to enhance just
and equitable public safety, repair breaches of
trust between law enforcement agencies and the
community they pledge to serve, and enhance
accountability of law enforcement officers.
(b) Contracts and Subawards.--A State or unit of local
government may, in using a grant under this subpart for
purposes authorized by subsection (a), use all or a portion of
that grant to contract with or make one or more subawards to
one or more--
(1) neighborhood or community-based organizations
that are private and nonprofit; or
(2) units of local government.
(c) Program Assessment Component; Waiver.--
(1) Each program funded under this subpart shall
contain a program assessment component, developed
pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney
General, in coordination with the National Institute of
Justice.
(2) The Attorney General may waive the requirement of
paragraph (1) with respect to a program if, in the
opinion of the Attorney General, the program is not of
sufficient size to justify a full program assessment.
(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded
under subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under
this subsection shall contain a report on best
practices for crisis intervention.
(d) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no funds provided under this subpart may be used,
directly or indirectly, to provide any of the following
matters:
(1) Any security enhancements or any equipment to any
nongovernmental entity that is not engaged in criminal
justice or public safety.
(2) Unless the Attorney General certifies that
extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist that make
the use of such funds to provide such matters essential
to the maintenance of public safety and good order--
(A) vehicles (excluding police cruisers),
vessels (excluding police boats), or aircraft
(excluding police helicopters);
(B) luxury items;
(C) real estate;
(D) construction projects (other than penal
or correctional institutions); or
(E) any similar matters.
(e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 10 percent of a
grant made under this subpart may be used for costs incurred to
administer such grant.
(f) Period.--The period of a grant made under this subpart
shall be four years, except that renewals and extensions beyond
that period may be granted at the discretion of the Attorney
General.
(g) Rule of Construction.--Subparagraph (d)(1) shall not be
construed to prohibit the use, directly or indirectly, of funds
provided under this subpart to provide security at a public
event, such as a political convention or major sports event, so
long as such security is provided under applicable laws and
procedures.
SEC. 502. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart, the
chief executive officer of a State or unit of local government
shall submit an application to the Attorney General within 120
days after the date on which funds to carry out this subpart
are appropriated for a fiscal year, in such form as the
Attorney General may require. Such application shall include
the following:
(1) A certification that Federal funds made available
under this subpart will not be used to supplant State
or local funds, but will be used to increase the
amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of
Federal funds, be made available for law enforcement
activities.
(2) An assurance that, not fewer than 30 days before
the application (or any amendment to the application)
was submitted to the Attorney General, the application
(or amendment) was submitted for review to the
governing body of the State or unit of local government
(or to an organization designated by that governing
body).
(3) An assurance that, before the application (or any
amendment to the application) was submitted to the
Attorney General--
(A) the application (or amendment) was made
public; and
(B) an opportunity to comment on the
application (or amendment) was provided to
citizens and to neighborhood or community-based
organizations, to the extent applicable law or
established procedure makes such an opportunity
available.
(4) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered
by an application, the applicant shall maintain and
report such data, records, and information
(programmatic and financial) as the Attorney General
may reasonably require.
(5) A certification, made in a form acceptable to the
Attorney General and executed by the chief executive
officer of the applicant (or by another officer of the
applicant, if qualified under regulations promulgated
by the Attorney General), that--
(A) the programs to be funded by the grant
meet all the requirements of this subpart;
(B) all the information contained in the
application is correct;
(C) there has been appropriate coordination
with affected agencies; and
(D) the applicant will comply with all
provisions of this subpart and all other
applicable Federal laws.
(6) A comprehensive Statewide plan detailing how
grants received under this section will be used to
improve the administration of the criminal justice
system, which shall--
(A) be designed in consultation with local
governments, and representatives of all
segments of the criminal justice system,
including judges, prosecutors, law enforcement
personnel, corrections personnel, and providers
of indigent defense services, victim services,
juvenile justice delinquency prevention
programs, community corrections, and reentry
services;
(B) include a description of how the State
will allocate funding within and among each of
the uses described in subparagraphs (A) through
(G) of section 501(a)(1);
(C) describe the process used by the State
for gathering evidence-based data and
developing and using evidence-based and
evidence-gathering approaches in support of
funding decisions;
(D) describe the barriers at the State and
local level for accessing data and implementing
evidence-based approaches to preventing and
reducing crime and recidivism; and
(E) be updated every 5 years, with annual
progress reports that--
(i) address changing circumstances in
the State, if any;
(ii) describe how the State plans to
adjust funding within and among each of
the uses described in subparagraphs (A)
through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
(iii) provide an ongoing assessment
of need;
(iv) discuss the accomplishment of
goals identified in any plan previously
prepared under this paragraph; and
(v) reflect how the plan influenced
funding decisions in the previous year.
(7) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered
by an application, the applicant will use not less than
5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for
the fiscal year to assist law enforcement agencies of
the applicant, including campus public safety
departments, gain or maintain accreditation from
certified law enforcement accreditation organizations
in accordance with section 113 of the Law Enforcement
Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.
(8) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered
by an application, the applicant will use not less than
5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for
the fiscal year to study and implement effective
management, training, recruiting, hiring, and oversight
standards and programs to promote effective community
and problem solving strategies for law enforcement
agencies in accordance with section 114 of the Law
Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2020.
(9) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered
by an application, the applicant will use not less than
10 percent of the total amount of the grant award for
the fiscal year to develop and implement best practice
devices and systems to eliminate racial profiling in
accordance with section 334 of the End Racial and
Religious Profiling Act of 2020.
(10) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered
by an application, the applicant will use not less than
5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for
the fiscal year to develop policies and protocols in
compliance with part OO.
(b) Technical Assistance.--
(1) Strategic planning.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney
General shall begin to provide technical assistance to
States and local governments requesting support to
develop and implement the strategic plan required under
subsection (a)(6). The Attorney General may enter into
agreements with 1 or more non-governmental
organizations to provide technical assistance and
training under this paragraph.
(2) Protection of constitutional rights.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall begin to provide
technical assistance to States and local governments,
including any agent thereof with responsibility for
administration of justice, requesting support to meet
the obligations established by the Sixth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, which shall
include--
(A) public dissemination of practices,
structures, or models for the administration of
justice consistent with the requirements of the
Sixth Amendment; and
(B) assistance with adopting and implementing
a system for the administration of justice
consistent with the requirements of the Sixth
Amendment.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For each of
fiscal years 2017 through 2021, of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this subpart, not less than
$5,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000 shall be used
to carry out this subsection.
* * * * * * *
PART Q--PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY POLICING; ``COPS ON THE BEAT''
SEC. 1701. AUTHORITY TO MAKE PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY POLICING
GRANTS.
(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall carry
out a single grant program under which the Attorney General
makes grants to States, units of local government, Indian
tribal governments, other public and private entities, and
multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia for the purposes
described in subsection (b).
(b) uses of grant amounts.--The purposes for which grants
made under subsection (a) may be made are--
(1) to rehire law enforcement officers who have been
laid off as a result of State, tribal, or local budget
reductions for deployment in community-oriented
policing;
(2) to hire and train new, additional career law
enforcement officers for deployment in community-
oriented policing across the Nation, including by
prioritizing the hiring and training of veterans (as
defined in section 101 of title 38, United States
Code);
(3) to procure equipment, technology, or support
systems, or pay overtime, to increase the number of
officers deployed in community-oriented policing;
(4) to award grants to pay for offices hired to
perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security
duties;
(5) to increase the number of law enforcement
officers involved in activities that are focused on
interaction with members of the community on proactive
crime control and prevention by redeploying officers to
such activities;
(6) to provide specialized training to law
enforcement officers to enhance their conflict
resolution, mediation, problem solving, service, and
other skills needed to work in partnership with members
of the community;
(7) to increase police participation in
multidisciplinary early intervention teams;
(8) to develop new technologies, including
interoperable communications technologies, modernized
criminal record technology, and forensic technology, to
assist State, tribal, and local law enforcement
agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their
activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime
and to train law enforcement officers to use such
technologies;
(9) to develop and implement innovative programs to
permit members of the community to assist State,
tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in the
prevention of crime in the community, such as a
citizens' police academy, including programs designed
to increase the level of access to the criminal justice
system enjoyed by victims, witnesses, and ordinary
citizens by establishing decentralized satellite
offices (including video facilities) of principal
criminal courts buildings;
(10) to establish innovative programs to reduce, and
keep to a minimum, the amount of time that law
enforcement officers must be away from the community
while awaiting court appearances;
(11) to establish and implement innovative programs
to increase and enhance proactive crime control and
prevention programs involving law enforcement officers
and young persons in the community;
(12) to establish school-based partnerships between
local law enforcement agencies and local school systems
by using school resource officers who operate in and
around elementary and secondary schools to combat
school-related crime and disorder problems, gangs, and
drug activities, including the training of school
resource officers in the prevention of human
trafficking offenses;
(13) to develop and establish new administrative and
managerial systems to facilitate the adoption of
community-oriented policing as an organization-wide
philosophy;
(14) to assist a State or Indian tribe in enforcing a
law throughout the State or tribal community that
requires that a convicted sex offender register his or
her address with a State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency and be subject to criminal
prosecution for failure to comply;
(15) to establish, implement, and coordinate crime
prevention and control programs (involving law
enforcement officers working with community members)
with other Federal programs that serve the community
and community members to better address the
comprehensive needs of the community and its members;
(16) to support the purchase by a law enforcement
agency of no more than 1 service weapon per officer,
upon hiring for deployment in community-oriented
policing or, if necessary, upon existing officers'
initial redeployment to community-oriented policing;
(17) to participate in nationally recognized active
shooter training programs that offer scenario-based,
integrated response courses designed to counter active
shooter threats or acts of terrorism against
individuals or facilities;
(18) to provide specialized training to law
enforcement officers to--
(A) recognize individuals who have a mental
illness; and
(B) properly interact with individuals who
have a mental illness, including strategies for
verbal de-escalation of crises;
(19) to establish collaborative programs that enhance
the ability of law enforcement agencies to address the
mental health, behavioral, and substance abuse problems
of individuals encountered by law enforcement officers
in the line of duty;
(20) to provide specialized training to corrections
officers to recognize individuals who have a mental
illness;
(21) to enhance the ability of corrections officers
to address the mental health of individuals under the
care and custody of jails and prisons, including
specialized training and strategies for verbal de-
escalation of crises;
(22) to develop best practices for and to create
civilian review boards;
(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop,
and train new, additional career law enforcement
officers or current law enforcement officers who are
willing to relocate to communities--
(A) where there are poor or fragmented
relationships between police and residents of
the community, or where there are high
incidents of crime; and
(B) that are the communities that the law
enforcement officers serve, or that are in
close proximity to the communities that the law
enforcement officers serve;
(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement
officers who are willing to relocate to the communities
where they serve, and whether such law enforcement
officer relocations have impacted crime in such
communities;
(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and
timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop,
and train a diverse and inclusive law enforcement
workforce, consistent with merit system principles and
applicable law;
[(22)] (26) to permit tribal governments receiving
direct law enforcement services from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to access the program under this section
for use in accordance with paragraphs (1) through
[(21)] (25); and
[(23)] (27) to establish peer mentoring mental health
and wellness pilot programs within State, tribal, and
local law enforcement agencies.
(c) Preferential Consideration of Applications for Certain
Grants.--In awarding grants under this part, the Attorney
General may give preferential consideration, where feasible, to
an application--
(1) for hiring and rehiring additional career law
enforcement officers that involves a non-Federal
contribution exceeding the 25 percent minimum under
subsection (g);
(2) from an applicant in a State that has in effect a
law that--
(A) treats a minor who has engaged in, or has
attempted to engage in, a commercial sex act as
a victim of a severe form of trafficking in
persons;
(B) discourages or prohibits the charging or
prosecution of an individual described in
subparagraph (A) for a prostitution or sex
trafficking offense, based on the conduct
described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) encourages the diversion of an individual
described in subparagraph (A) to appropriate
service providers, including child welfare
services, victim treatment programs, child
advocacy centers, rape crisis centers, or other
social services; or
(3) from an applicant in a State that has in effect a
law--
(A) that--
(i) provides a process by which an
individual who is a human trafficking
survivor can move to vacate any arrest
or conviction records for a non-violent
offense committed as a direct result of
human trafficking, including
prostitution or lewdness;
(ii) establishes a rebuttable
presumption that any arrest or
conviction of an individual for an
offense associated with human
trafficking is a result of being
trafficked, if the individual--
(I) is a person granted
nonimmigrant status pursuant to
section 101(a)(15)(T)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(i));
(II) is the subject of a
certification by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services
under section 107(b)(1)(E) of
the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(E)); or
(III) has other similar
documentation of trafficking,
which has been issued by a
Federal, State, or local
agency; and
(iii) protects the identity of
individuals who are human trafficking
survivors in public and court records;
and
(B) that does not require an individual who
is a human trafficking survivor to provide
official documentation as described in
subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subparagraph
(A)(ii) in order to receive protection under
the law.
(d) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide
technical assistance to States, units of local
government, Indian tribal governments, and to other
public and private entities, in furtherance of the
purposes of the Public Safety Partnership and Community
Policing Act of 1994.
(2) Model.--The technical assistance provided by the
Attorney General may include the development of a
flexible model that will define for State and local
governments, and other public and private entities,
definitions and strategies associated with community or
problem-oriented policing and methodologies for its
implementation.
(3) Training centers and facilities.--The technical
assistance provided by the Attorney General may include
the establishment and operation of training centers or
facilities, either directly or by contracting or
cooperative arrangements. The functions of the centers
or facilities established under this paragraph may
include instruction and seminars for police executives,
managers, trainers, supervisors, and such others as the
Attorney General considers to be appropriate concerning
community or problem-oriented policing and improvements
in police-community interaction and cooperation that
further the purposes of the Public Safety Partnership
and Community Policing Act of 1994.
(e) Utilization of Components.--The Attorney General may
utilize any component or components of the Department of
Justice in carrying out this part.
(f) Minimum Amount.--Unless all applications submitted by any
State and grantee within the State pursuant to subsection (a)
have been funded, each qualifying State, together with grantees
within the State, shall receive in each fiscal year pursuant to
subsection (a) not less than 0.5 percent of the total amount
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to that
subsection. In this subsection, ``qualifying State'' means any
State which has submitted an application for a grant, or in
which an eligible entity has submitted an application for a
grant, which meets the requirements prescribed by the Attorney
General and the conditions set out in this part.
(g) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a program,
project, or activity provided by a grant under subsection (a)
may not exceed 75 percent, unless the Attorney General waives,
wholly or in part, the requirement under this subsection of a
non-Federal contribution to the costs of a program, project, or
activity. In relation to a grant for a period exceeding 1 year
for hiring or rehiring career law enforcement officers, the
Federal share shall decrease from year to year for up to 5
years, looking toward the continuation of the increased hiring
level using State or local sources of funding following the
conclusion of Federal support, as provided in an approved plan
pursuant to section 1702(c)(8).
(h) Allocation of Funds.--The funds available under this part
shall be allocated as provided in section 1001(a)(11)(B).
(i) Termination of Grants for Hiring Officers.--Except as
provided in subsection (j), the authority under subsection (a)
of this section to make grants for the hiring and rehiring of
additional career law enforcement officers shall lapse at the
conclusion of 6 years from the date of enactment of this part.
Prior to the expiration of this grant authority, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to Congress concerning the
experience with and effects of such grants. The report may
include any recommendations the Attorney General may have for
amendments to this part and related provisions of law in light
of the termination of the authority to make grants for the
hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement
officers.
(j) Grants to Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (i) and
section 1703, and in acknowledgment of the Federal
nexus and distinct Federal responsibility to address
and prevent crime in Indian country, the Attorney
General shall provide grants under this section to
Indian tribal governments, for fiscal year 2011 and any
fiscal year thereafter, for such period as the Attorney
General determines to be appropriate to assist the
Indian tribal governments in carrying out the purposes
described in subsection (b).
(2) Priority of funding.--In providing grants to
Indian tribal governments under this subsection, the
Attorney General shall take into consideration
reservation crime rates and tribal law enforcement
staffing needs of each Indian tribal government.
(3) Federal share.--Because of the Federal nature and
responsibility for providing public safety on Indian
land, the Federal share of the cost of any activity
carried out using a grant under this subsection--
(A) shall be 100 percent; and
(B) may be used to cover indirect costs.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subsection $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011
through 2015.
(k) COPS Anti-Meth Program.--The Attorney General shall use
amounts otherwise appropriated to carry out this section for a
fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2019) to make
competitive grants, in amounts of not less than $1,000,000 for
such fiscal year, to State law enforcement agencies with high
seizures of precursor chemicals, finished methamphetamine,
laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures for the purpose of
locating or investigating illicit activities, such as precursor
diversion, laboratories, or methamphetamine traffickers.
(l) Cops Anti-heroin Task Force Program.--The Attorney
General shall use amounts otherwise appropriated to carry out
this section, or other amounts as appropriated, for a fiscal
year (beginning with fiscal year 2019) to make competitive
grants to State law enforcement agencies in States with high
per capita rates of primary treatment admissions, for the
purpose of locating or investigating illicit activities,
through Statewide collaboration, relating to the distribution
of heroin, fentanyl, or carfentanil or relating to the unlawful
distribution of prescription opioids.
(m) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall submit
to Congress a report describing the extent and effectiveness of
the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) initiative as applied in
Indian country, including particular references to--
(1) the problem of intermittent funding;
(2) the integration of COPS personnel with existing
law enforcement authorities; and
(3) an explanation of how the practice of community
policing and the broken windows theory can most
effectively be applied in remote tribal locations.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1709. DEFINITIONS.
In this part--
(1) ``career law enforcement officer'' means a person
hired on a permanent basis who is authorized by law or
by a State or local public agency to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation
of violations of criminal laws.
(2) ``citizens' police academy'' means a program by
local law enforcement agencies or private nonprofit
organizations in which citizens, especially those who
participate in neighborhood watch programs, are trained
in ways of facilitating communication between the
community and local law enforcement in the prevention
of crime.
(3) ``Indian tribe'' means a tribe, band, pueblo,
nation, or other organized group or community of
Indians, including an Alaska Native village (as defined
in or established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), that is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States to Indians
because of their status as Indians.
(4) ``school resource officer'' means a career law
enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in
community-oriented policing, and assigned by the
employing police department or agency to work in
collaboration with schools and community-based
organizations--
(A) to address crime and disorder problems,
gangs, and drug activities affecting or
occurring in or around an elementary or
secondary school;
(B) to develop or expand crime prevention
efforts for students;
(C) to educate likely school-age victims in
crime prevention and safety;
(D) to develop or expand community justice
initiatives for students;
(E) to train students in conflict resolution,
restorative justice, and crime awareness;
(F) to assist in the identification of
physical changes in the environment that may
reduce crime in or around the school; and
(G) to assist in developing school policy
that addresses crime and to recommend
procedural changes.
(5) ``commercial sex act'' has the meaning given the
term in section 103 of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102).
(6) ``minor'' means an individual who has not
attained the age of 18 years.
(7) ``severe form of trafficking in persons'' has the
meaning given the term in section 103 of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7102).
(8) ``civilian review board'' means an administrative
entity that investigates civilian complaints against
law enforcement officers and--
(A) is independent and adequately funded;
(B) has investigatory authority and subpoena
power;
(C) has representative community diversity;
(D) has policy making authority;
(E) provides advocates for civilian
complainants;
(F) may conduct hearings; and
(G) conducts statistical studies on
prevailing complaint trends.
* * * * * * *
PART OO--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND RECORDED DATA
SEC. 3051. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (10) of
section 502(a) of this title--
(1) shall be used--
(A) to purchase or lease body-worn cameras
for use by State, local, and tribal law
enforcement officers (as defined in section
2503);
(B) for expenses related to the
implementation of a body-worn camera program in
order to deter excessive force, improve
accountability and transparency of use of force
by law enforcement officers, assist in
responding to complaints against law
enforcement officers, and improve evidence
collection; and
(C) to implement policies or procedures to
comply with the requirements described in
subsection (b); and
(2) may not be used for expenses related to facial
recognition technology.
(b) Requirements.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of
part E of this title shall--
(1) establish policies and procedures in accordance
with the requirements described in subsection (c)
before law enforcement officers use of body-worn
cameras;
(2) adopt recorded data collection and retention
protocols as described in subsection (d) before law
enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
(3) make the policies and protocols described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) available to the public; and
(4) comply with the requirements for use of recorded
data under subsection (f).
(c) Required Policies and Procedures.--A recipient of a grant
under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--
(1) develop with community input and publish for
public view policies and protocols for--
(A) the safe and effective use of body-worn
cameras;
(B) the secure storage, handling, and
destruction of recorded data collected by body-
worn cameras;
(C) protecting the privacy rights of any
individual who may be recorded by a body-worn
camera;
(D) the release of any recorded data
collected by a body-worn camera in accordance
with the open records laws, if any, of the
State; and
(E) making recorded data available to
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other
officers of the court in accordance with
subparagraph (E); and
(2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of
the storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.
(d) Recorded Data Collection and Retention Protocol.--The
recorded data collection and retention protocol described in
this paragraph is a protocol that--
(1) requires--
(A) a law enforcement officer who is wearing
a body-worn camera to provide an explanation if
an activity that is required to be recorded by
the body-worn camera is not recorded;
(B) a law enforcement officer who is wearing
a body-worn camera to obtain consent to be
recorded from a crime victim or witness before
interviewing the victim or witness;
(C) the collection of recorded data unrelated
to a legitimate law enforcement purpose be
minimized to the greatest extent practicable;
(D) the system used to store recorded data
collected by body-worn cameras to log all
viewing, modification, or deletion of stored
recorded data and to prevent, to the greatest
extent practicable, the unauthorized access or
disclosure of stored recorded data;
(E) any law enforcement officer be prohibited
from accessing the stored data without an
authorized purpose; and
(F) the law enforcement agency to collect and
report statistical data on--
(i) incidences of use of force,
disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
gender, and age of the victim;
(ii) the number of complaints filed
against law enforcement officers;
(iii) the disposition of complaints
filed against law enforcement officers;
(iv) the number of times camera
footage is used for evidence collection
in investigations of crimes; and
(v) any other additional statistical
data that the Director determines
should be collected and reported;
(2) allows an individual to file a complaint with a
law enforcement agency relating to the improper use of
body-worn cameras; and
(3) complies with any other requirements established
by the Director.
(e) Reporting.--Statistical data required to be collected
under subsection (d)(1)(D) shall be reported to the Director,
who shall--
(1) establish a standardized reporting system for
statistical data collected under this program; and
(2) establish a national database of statistical data
recorded under this program.
(f) Use or Transfer of Recorded Data.--
(1) In general.--Recorded data collected by an entity
receiving a grant under a grant under subpart 1 of part
E of this title from a body-worn camera shall be used
only in internal and external investigations of
misconduct by a law enforcement agency or officer, if
there is reasonable suspicion that a recording contains
evidence of a crime, or for limited training purposes.
The Director shall establish rules to ensure that the
recorded data is used only for the purposes described
in this paragraph.
(2) Prohibition on transfer.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), an entity receiving a grant under
subpart 1 of part E of this title may not transfer any
recorded data collected by the entity from a body-worn
camera to another law enforcement or intelligence
agency.
(3) Exceptions.--
(A) Criminal investigation.--An entity
receiving a grant under subpart 1 of part E of
this title may transfer recorded data collected
by the entity from a body-worn camera to
another law enforcement agency or intelligence
agency for use in a criminal investigation if
the requesting law enforcement or intelligence
agency has reasonable suspicion that the
requested data contains evidence relating to
the crime being investigated.
(B) Civil rights claims.--An entity receiving
a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title
may transfer recorded data collected by the law
enforcement agency from a body-worn camera to
another law enforcement agency for use in an
investigation of the violation of any right,
privilege, or immunity secured or protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(g) Audit and Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this part, the Director of the
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management shall
perform an assessment of the use of funds under this
section and the policies and protocols of the grantees.
(2) Reports.--Not later than September 1 of each
year, beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of
this part, each recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of
part E of this title shall submit to the Director of
the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management a
report that--
(A) describes the progress of the body-worn
camera program; and
(B) contains recommendations on ways in which
the Federal Government, States, and units of
local government can further support the
implementation of the program.
(3) Review.--The Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies
and protocols of the grantees and take such steps as
the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and
Management determines necessary to ensure compliance
with the program.
SEC. 3052. BODY-WORN CAMERA TRAINING TOOLKIT.
(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and maintain a
body-worn camera training toolkit for law enforcement agencies,
academia, and other relevant entities to provide training and
technical assistance, including best practices for
implementation, model policies and procedures, and research
materials.
(b) Mechanism.--In establishing the toolkit required to under
subsection (a), the Director may consolidate research,
practices, templates, and tools that been developed by expert
and law enforcement agencies across the country.
SEC. 3053. STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Police CAMERA Act of 2020, the Director shall
conduct a study on--
(1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring
excessive force by law enforcement officers;
(2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the
accountability and transparency of the use of force by
law enforcement officers;
(3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to
and adjudications of complaints of excessive force;
(4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the
safety of law enforcement officers on patrol;
(5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on
public safety;
(6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence
collection for criminal investigations;
(7) issues relating to the secure storage and
handling of recorded data from the body-worn cameras;
(8) issues relating to the privacy of individuals and
officers recorded on body-worn cameras;
(9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of
individuals on whom facial recognition technology is
used;
(10) issues relating to limitations on the use of
facial recognition technology;
(11) issues relating to the public's access to body-
worn camera footage;
(12) the need for proper training of law enforcement
officers that use body-worn cameras;
(13) best practices in the development of protocols
for the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
(14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found
body-worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of
the agencies; and
(15) any other factors that the Director determines
are relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn
cameras.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on which
the study required under subsection (a) is completed, the
Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study, which
shall include any policy recommendations that the Director
considers appropriate.
* * * * * * *
----------
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
* * * * * * *
Part E--Administrative and Enforcement Provisions
* * * * * * *
search warrants
Sec. 509. A search warrant relating to offenses involving
controlled substances may be served at any time of the day or
night if the judge or United States magistrate issuing the
warrant is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe
that grounds exist for the warrant and for its service at such
time. A search warrant authorized under this section shall
require that a law enforcement officer execute the search
warrant only after providing notice of his or her authority and
purpose.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE A--GENERAL MILITARY LAW
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law
enforcement activities
(a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal
property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
(A) suitable for use by the agencies in law
enforcement activities, including [counterdrug,
counterterrorism, and border security activities]
counterterrorism; and
(B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Secretary shall carry out this section in
consultation with the Attorney General[, the Director of
National Drug Control Policy,] and the Secretary of Homeland
Security, as appropriate.
(b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary of Defense may
transfer personal property under this section only if--
(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the
Department of Defense;
(2) the recipient accepts the property on an as-is,
where-is basis;
(3) the transfer is made without the expenditure of
any funds available to the Department of Defense for
the procurement of defense equipment;
(4) all costs incurred subsequent to the transfer of
the property are borne or reimbursed by the recipient;
(5) the recipient, on an annual basis, and with the
authorization of the relevant local governing body or
authority, certifies that it has adopted publicly
available protocols for the appropriate use of
controlled property, the supervision of such use, and
the evaluation of the effectiveness of such use,
including auditing and accountability policies; [and]
(6) after the completion of the assessment required
by section 1051(e) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the recipient,
on an annual basis, certifies that it provides annual
training to relevant personnel on the maintenance,
sustainment, and appropriate use of controlled
property[.];
(7) the recipient submits to the Department of
Defense a description of how the recipient expects to
use the property;
(8) the recipient certifies to the Department of
Defense that if the recipient determines that the
property is surplus to the needs of the recipient, the
recipient will return the property to the Department of
Defense;
(9) with respect to a recipient that is not a Federal
agency, the recipient certifies to the Department of
Defense that the recipient notified the local community
of the request for personal property under this section
by--
(A) publishing a notice of such request on a
publicly accessible Internet website;
(B) posting such notice at several prominent
locations in the jurisdiction of the recipient;
and
(C) ensuring that such notices were available
to the local community for a period of not less
than 30 days; and
(10) the recipient has received the approval of the
city council or other local governing body to acquire
the personal property sought under this section.
(c) Consideration.--Subject to subsection (b)(4), the
Secretary may transfer personal property under this section
without charge to the recipient agency.
[(d) Preference for Certain Transfers.--In considering
applications for the transfer of personal property under this
section, the Secretary shall give a preference to those
applications indicating that the transferred property will be
used in the counterdrug, counterterrorism, or border security
activities of the recipient agency.]
(d) Annual Certification Accounting for Transferred
Property.--(1) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress certification in writing that each Federal or State
agency to which the Secretary has transferred property under
this section--
(A) has provided to the Secretary documentation
accounting for all controlled property, including arms
and ammunition, that the Secretary has transferred to
the agency, including any item described in subsection
(f) so transferred before the date of the enactment of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020; and
(B) with respect to a non-Federal agency, carried out
each of paragraphs (5) through (8) of subsection (b).
(2) If the Secretary does not provide a certification under
paragraph (1) for a Federal or State agency, the Secretary may
not transfer additional property to that agency under this
section.
(e) Annual Report on Excess Property.--Before making any
property available for transfer under this section, the
Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a description of
the property to be transferred together with a certification
that the transfer of the property would not violate this
section or any other provision of law.
(f) Limitations on Transfers.--(1) The Secretary may not
transfer to Federal, Tribal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies the following under this section:
(A) Controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets,
grenade launchers, grenades (including stun and flash-
bang),and explosives.
(B) Controlled vehicles, highly mobile multi-wheeled
vehicles, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles,
trucks, truck dump, truck utility, and truck carryall.
(C) Drones that are armored, weaponized, or both.
(D) Controlled aircraft that--
(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
(ii) have no established commercial flight
application.
(E) Silencers.
(F) Long-range acoustic devices.
(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned
items.
(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a
transfer under this section, that a Federal or State agency
demonstrate the use of any small arms or ammunition.
(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also apply
with respect to the transfer of previously transferred property
of the Department of Defense from one Federal or State agency
to another such agency.
(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph
(1) to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of such
paragraph (other than a mine-resistant ambush-protected
vehicle), if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is
necessary for disaster or rescue purposes or for another
purpose where life and public safety are at risk, as
demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall--
(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post
such notice on a public Internet website of the
Department, by not later than 30 days after the date on
which the waiver is issued; and
(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the
recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued
provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer,
including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which
it is transferred, in the jurisdiction where the
recipient is located by not later than 30 days after
the date on which the waiver is issued.
(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the
limitation under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the case
of parts for aircraft described in such subparagraph that are
transferred as part of regular maintenance of aircraft in an
existing fleet.
(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any
transfer of property under this section, that the Federal or
State agency that receives the property shall return the
property to the Secretary if the agency--
(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for
any violation of civil liberties; or
(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread
abuses of civil liberties.
(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available for any fiscal year may not be
obligated or expended to carry out this section unless the
Secretary submits to Congress certification that for the
preceding fiscal year that--
(1) each Federal or State agency that has received
controlled property transferred under this section
has--
(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability
for all such property, in accordance with
paragraph (2) or (3), as applicable; or
(B) been suspended from the program pursuant
to paragraph (4);
(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has
received controlled property under this section, the
State coordinator responsible for each such agency has
verified that the coordinator or an agent of the
coordinator has conducted an in-person inventory of the
property transferred to the agency and that 100 percent
of such property was accounted for during the inventory
or that the agency has been suspended from the program
pursuant to paragraph (4);
(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has
received controlled property under this section, the
Secretary of Defense or an agent of the Secretary has
conducted an in-person inventory of the property
transferred to the agency and that 100 percent of such
property was accounted for during the inventory or that
the agency has been suspended from the program pursuant
to paragraph (4);
(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received
controlled property under this section for which 100
percent of the property was not accounted for during an
inventory described in paragraph (1) or (2), as
applicable, to receive any property transferred under
this section has been suspended; and
(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each
non-Federal agency located in the State for which the
State coordinator is responsible that--
(A) the agency has complied with all
requirements under this section; or
(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive
property transferred under this section has
been suspended; and
(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each
Federal agency that has received property under this
section that--
(A) the agency has complied with all
requirements under this section; or
(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive
property transferred under this section has
been suspended.
(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A
Federal or State agency that receives controlled property under
this section may not take ownership of the property.
(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later
than 30 days before downgrading the classification of any item
of personal property from controlled or Federal Supply Class,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of the proposed
downgrade.
(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--Before
the Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient of
property transferred under this section to cannibalize the
property, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of such
authorization, including the name of the recipient requesting
the authorization, the purpose of the proposed cannibalization,
and the type of property proposed to be cannibalized.
(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--Not
later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quarter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on any uses of
controlled property transferred under this section during that
fiscal quarter.
(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the
last day of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the following for the preceding fiscal
year:
(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of
property transferred under this section, including
specific information about the type of property lost,
the monetary value of such property, and the recipient
that lost the property.
(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A)
property transferred under this section, including
specific information about the type of property, the
recipient of the property, the monetary value of each
item of the property, and the total monetary value of
all such property transferred during the fiscal year.
[(e)] (o) Publicly Accessible Website.--(1) The Secretary
shall create and maintain a publicly available Internet website
that provides information on the controlled property
transferred under this section and the recipients of such
property.
(2) The contents of the Internet website required under
paragraph (1) shall include all publicly accessible
unclassified information pertaining to the request, transfer,
denial, and repossession of controlled property under this
section, including--
(A) a current inventory of all controlled property
transferred to Federal and State agencies under this
section, listed by the name of the recipient and the
year of the transfer;
(B) all pending requests for transfers of controlled
property under this section, including the information
submitted by the Federal and State agencies requesting
such transfers; and
(C) all reports required to be submitted to the
Secretary under this section by Federal and State
agencies that receive controlled property under this
section.
[(f)] (p) Controlled Property.--In this section, the term
``controlled property'' means any item assigned a
demilitarization code of B, C, D, E, G, or Q under Department
of Defense Manual 4160.21-M, ``Defense Materiel Disposition
Manual'', or any successor document.
* * * * * * *
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AMinority Views
Following the murder of George Floyd while in the custody
of the Minneapolis Police Department, Americans across the
political spectrum have called for a bipartisan response to
address police misconduct. On June 8, 2020, House Democrats
introduced H.R. 7120, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020,
sponsored by Representative Karen Bass.\1\ Committee Democrats
drafted its 135-page bill and a subsequent substitute amendment
to the bill without any attempt at serious consultation with
Republicans on this Committee. In doing so, Chairman Nadler and
the Democrat Majority chose to prioritize political messaging
over crafting consensus-based, effective legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H.R. 7120, 116th Cong. (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Nadler and Committee Democrats have affirmatively
chosen not to work cooperatively with Republicans on this
legislation. Prior to the introduction of H.R. 7120,
Republicans reached out to Democrats to inquire if they would
be willing to share legislative text for review by Committee
Members. Democrats rejected that request. Republicans asked if
Democrats would be willing to share a summary or section-by-
section analysis of the bill. Democrats responded that all
materials were under embargo until the bill was introduced.
Likewise, Democrats allowed no consultation with Republicans in
the drafting of Chairman Nadler's amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority's refusal to work
collaboratively with Republicans--or even to share basic
information about the legislation--prevents the Committee from
developing sound public policy. Although Republican Members
agree that police reform is needed and even support some
aspects of H.R. 7120, the proposals must be thoughtfully
considered so as not to endanger the public or law enforcement
officers by creating under-resourced and over-restricted police
departments. Such a deliberative process did not occur with
this bill. Because the Democrat Majority shut Republicans out
of the process and rushed to pass this legislation, several of
the provisions within H.R. 7210 have serious shortcomings.
I. H.R. 7120 AS DRAFTED WILL HANDICAP LAW-ABIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS AND MAKE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE
Lowering the mens rea standard--Section 101
Section 101 of the bill would change the mens rea standard
when charging an officer with criminal misconduct from
``willfulness'' to ``knowingly or recklessly.'' Currently, to
be convicted of a crime, an officer must specifically intend to
``deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision
or other rule of law.'' The lower standard of ``knowingly or
recklessly'' would allow an officer to be convicted without
having a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal
right. While law enforcement officers who commit crimes must be
held accountable for their actions, lowering the mens rea
standard could have unintended adverse consequences to public
safety. Law enforcement officers often find themselves in
situations that require split second decisions under
considerable stress. In those harrowing moments, hesitation and
second-guessing can be dangerous--and perhaps deadly--for the
officers and the public. This section will cause law
enforcement officers to hesitate the next time they encounter
these difficult decisions.
Removal of the qualified immunity doctrine--Section 102
Section 102 of the bill would single out federal law
enforcement officers, along with state and local law
enforcement and correctional officers, for reduced protection
under the qualified immunity doctrine. Under the judicially-
created doctrine of qualified immunity, government actors, such
as police officers, teachers, and social workers, are shielded
from alleged constitutional or statutory violations as long as
their actions ``[do] not violate `clearly established'
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.''\2\ Thus, qualified immunity serves to
protect government officials from civil liability for their
misconduct in certain instances while on the job.\3\ Under this
bill, Democrats eliminate qualified immunity for law
enforcement officers, while persevering the existing standard
for all other state and local officials, many of whom have less
complex and dangerous jobs than law enforcement officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 801 (1982).
\3\Charles Doyle, Cong. Research Serv., WSLG1825, Police Liability
for Less Than Excessive Force (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of qualified immunity for law enforcement
officers will have a detrimental effect on local communities.
The Supreme Court has noted that ``[q]ualified immunity gives
government officials breathing room to make reasonable but
mistaken judgments about open legal questions.''\4\ One
commentator has also noted that the doctrine seeks to ``strike
a balance'' because ``you don't want to have a legal system or
an officer who is going to shirk from doing their duty.''\5\ If
the qualified immunity doctrine is no longer available to law
enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies could have more
difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified and talented
people as law enforcement officers. The net result would be
more dangerous communities and neighborhoods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011).
\5\Devin Dwyer, ``Qualified immunity'' for police getting fresh
look by Supreme Court after George Floyd death, ABC News (Jun. 4,
2020), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-immunity-rule-fresh-
supreme-court-george-floyd/story?id=71044230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of a National Police Misconduct Registry--Section 201
Section 201 of the bill requires the Attorney General to
establish a public registry maintained by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) that contains complaints against federal, state,
and local police officers (including complaints that have not
yet been adjudicated), discipline records, termination records,
records of lawsuits and settlements, and officer
certifications. While Committee Republicans are supportive of
transparency and holding bad officers accountable for their
misconduct, the composition of the public registry under
section 201 is problematic. A national public registry that
includes unadjudicated complaints, or complaints that were
determined to be unfounded, raises serious due process concerns
for the law-abiding law enforcement officers subjected to
unadjudicated or unfounded complaints.
Limiting federal programs that provide military equipment to law
enforcement--Section 365
Section 365 seeks to drastically limit the Department of
Defense's (DOD) 1033 program. This program, created through
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997,
allows law enforcement agencies at all levels of government to
receive surplus equipment such as bulletproof vests, helmets,
and armored vehicles. This equipment--some of which may be
financially unobtainable for local law enforcement agencies--
protects law enforcement officers and the communities they
serve during dangerous situations.\6\ Equipment transferred
under these programs has also been used to rescue victims in
emergency situations such as natural disasters.\7\ Recognizing
the value in this program, President Trump signed an executive
order in 2017 that restored the program after it had been
scaled back under the Obama Administration.\8\ As a result of
section 365, state and local law enforcement agencies, and
especially those that exist in jurisdictions with budget
shortfalls, will be less equipped to serve their communities in
emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Adam Goldman, Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware
for Police, N.Y. Times (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/
08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html.
\7\Kari Blakinger, Military surplus program saved lives during
Harvey, Houston-area law enforcement say, Houston Chronicle, October
22, 2017.
\8\Adam Goldman, Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware
for Police, N.Y. Times (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/
08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. REPUBLICAN AMENDMENTS REJECTED BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY WOULD HAVE
IMPROVED THE LEGISLATION
During the Committee's business meeting to consider H.R.
7120, Republicans offered a dozen amendments to improve the
base bill. Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority declined
to accept--or even serious entertain--a single amendment
offered by Republicans. Democrats missed a unique opportunity
in the wake of national calls for bipartisan reform to actually
work across the aisle and pass meaningful legislation.
Improving police accountability
Republicans offered amendments to improve police
accountability. Although the bill requires state and local law
enforcement agencies to expand their use of recording equipment
in their day-to-day operations, Democrats rejected an amendment
offered by Representative Armstrong to require federal law
enforcement agencies record all interviews in connection to the
investigation of a federal offense. Similarly, although
Democrats asserted that the bill is designed to increase
accountability for police officers who commit misconduct,
Democrats rejected an amendment from Representative Cline that
would have prevented union collective bargaining agreements
from standing in the way of holding bad cops accountable.
Strengthening penalties for lynching
Included among the amendments that the Democrat Majority
refused to support was an amendment from Representative Gohmert
that provided meaningfulness to the Justice for Victims of
Lynching Act, including in H.R. 7120 as Title IV. A crime as
heinous as lynching deserves to be punished with a greater
penalty than merely up to 10 years imprisonment. The amendment
offered by Representative Gohmert would have augmented the
allowable sentence to any term of years, including life and
death. After Chairman Nadler announced his opposition to the
amendment on the basis of it including the death penalty,
Representative Gohmert offered to remove the death penalty
language. Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority nonetheless
rejected the amendment.
Ensuring adequate border security
Representative Gaetz offered an amendment to ensure that
those agencies engaged in border securities activities would
still have access to excess DOD property through the 1033
program. These agencies are fighting against violent cartels,
human traffickers, and smugglers on a daily basis. Democrats
rejected this amendment on a party line vote.
* * * * * * *
All Americans want safe communities. All Americans want
effective, transparent, and accountable policing. The Justice
in Policing Act--conceived, introduced, and marked-up on a
purely partisan basis--regrettably falls short of securing
those goals.
Chairman Nadler and Committee Democrats had an opportunity
to work collaboratively with Republicans to produce
comprehensive, well-designed legislation to improve policing in
America. President Trump has issued a bold executive order on
police reform and House and Senate Republicans have introduced
carefully considered legislation, the Justice Act, in each
chamber. However, in a failure of leadership to meet the
historic moment, Chairman Nadler chose not to solicit or
seriously consider any Republican proposals. The result is a
partisan piece of legislation with virtually no hope of
becoming law.
The Committee process in reporting H.R. 7120 to the House
floor demonstrates that Democrats would rather have an
election-year talking point than a bipartisan bill that offers
true advances in police reform.It is apparent that Democrats
drafted this bill more to satisfy their far-left base who support
efforts to defund, dismantle and disband the police than to secure
Republican support. In an election year, Chairman Nadler and House
Democrats chose partisanship over policy-making, and politics over
police reform. Americans deserve better.
Jim Jordan.
Ranking Member.
[all]
