A public hearing in an Alabama House committee resulted in a heated debate over whether expanding civil and criminal liability for police officers would help or harm those who wear the uniform.
HB202, sponsored by Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, was carried over by the Alabama House Judiciary Committee last week. The committee opted to adopt a substitution this week and hold a public hearing before voting at a later time, expecting another substitution.
The bill would effectively redefine misconduct by police limiting them to prosecution only if they are found to be behaving recklessly or violating a person’s constitutional rights. It would also provide a pretrial hearing and automatic stay of prosecution. At the same time, the courts determine if the misconduct is outside the scope of the law enforcement officer’s authority before proceeding with a trial.
“This bill would provide for a law enforcement officer is justified in and immune from criminal prosecution for use of force against a person in performance of conduct within his or her discretionary authority unless the use of force violates the person’s constitutional right to be free from that excessive force,” said Reynolds.
Reynolds said this bill would also update the state code so that it aligns with federal standards, setting the rule that “constitutional use of force is not criminal or subject to prosecution.”
Noel Barnes, general counsel for ALEA, spoke in defense of the bill for the necessary change to align with federal standards and discussed how the code has not been changed since 1979.
Hoss Mack, executive director of the Alabama Sheriffs Association, said the goal of the bill is to clear up the law, not to provide immunity.
“Let me be clear about something. There is no sheriff, there is no police chief, there is no law enforcement officer that would submit to you that they should be totally held unaccountable. In fact, I believe this bill actually holds a different level of accountability by that hearing that can be had and by extraditing the process,” said Mack.
Opponents of the bill and Rep. Patrice McClammy, D-Montgomery, shared concerns about the bill while citing specific cases in the state where they believe the bill could be misconstrued if signed into law.
“I think this is going to bring some emphasis to the timing of the hearing. Clearly, for that department, for that individual that at that time has probably been indicted, and the community to have time to see that they have a hearing, we see if they’re protected by this piece of legislation and if they’re outside of this legislation,” said Reynolds.
