46 minute read
James Adams Joins Staff at PCPA Headquarters as Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission Program Manager
The PCPA announced in January that James Adams had joined the staff at PCPA Headquarters as the Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission Program Manager. Adams has a long association with both PLEAC and with the PCPA. In 2001 while serving as a Lieutenant at the Upper Allen Township Police Department (UATPD) he became their first PLEAC Accreditation Manager and started the process toward accreditation. In May 2002 Jim became a PLEAC Assessor and began conducting on-site assessments for PLEAC and served as team leader on numerous occasions.
Adams holds a master’s degree in Public Administration from Shippensburg University and is a graduate of the 173rd Session of the FBI National Academy. Adams was appointed Chief of Police at UATPD in 2003 and became a PCPA member. Later, Adams represented Central PA on the PCPA Executive Board and on PLEAC. In 2010 under his leadership, UATPD became the 68th Accredited Police Department in PA. In 2018 he was elected PLEAC Chairperson and during his tenure as Chairperson, traveled across PA representing PLEAC & PCPA. Adams retired from UATPD at the rank of Chief after serving with the Department for over 42 years. He remains active as a life member in the PCPA, Central PA Chiefs, Cumberland County Chiefs, and the Eastern PA Chapter of the FBINAA.
Advertisement
The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, our staff, and our membership welcome Jim. His expertise and relationships throughout the Commonwealth will be a great benefit to PCPA and PLEAC.
Legal Update for Law Enforcement
By: Christopher Boyle, Esq., Chris Boyle Law Enforcement Consulting, LLC
STUMP THE CHUMP
Chris:
I have a question regarding the duty to intervene. I attended training you gave at MontCo when I was promoted, and I remember you saying that there was a duty to intervene in a constitutional violation. Is that any constitutional violation, or only excessive force? The situation I am thinking of is where there are two officers on a car stop, and one starts to do what the other knows is an illegal search. Does the second officer have a duty to intervene to stop the search?
Izzy Intervening Izzy: Outstanding question my friend! The short answer is “Yes, an officer has a duty to intervene in any constitutional violation when reasonable to do so.” The long answer is a little more involved. Under current Third Circuit authority, there appears to be a recognized duty to intervene only in a case of excessive force. Notice that I said “recognized”. Just because the courts have only had occasion to address excessive force, does not mean that they would not ultimately find a duty exists in all cases of constitutional violations, or that they would not find that the average, reasonable officer should already know that. The best outcome that an officer observing the illegal search and failing to intervene could likely hope for is qualified immunity, and we all know that QI only offers protection to the first officer to come across a situation as addressed by the court. That is not the end of the officer’s exposure, however. Even if the courts have not had the opportunity to address the issue in the context of a duty to intervene, they HAVE had the opportunity to address illegal searches and conspiracy to commit a constitutional violation. An officer failing to intervene in a known illegal search would likely still face these claims as well as the primary officer. So, if you see another officer performing an illegal search, remember that their action might land up dragging you into federal court for two or three years! Now that I am no longer actively practicing in the litigation arena, you are going to have to do so without The Chump at your side, and nobody wants that! So, probably best that you step in. Finally, the situation you describe would also likely violate Departmental policy and be a violation of your Disciplinary Code, so both officers are exposed there as well. Hope that helps, and thanks again for a great STC! Chris “The Chump” Boyle
Christopher P. Boyle, Esq. The material in this law alert has been prepared by Chris Boyle. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. To be removed from my list of subscribers who receive these complimentary Law Enforcement updates, utilize the “Unsubscribe” link below, or contact ChrisBoyle125@gmail.com . If however you continue to receive the alerts in error, please send a note to: ChrisBoyle125@gmail.com
CASE OF THE WEEK
COMMENT: It brings me exactly zero joy to bring this case to you today, and say that I reported the case of Sauers v Nesquehoning in these updates when the case came out. As you will recall, Sauers stands for the proposition that an officer can be found liable for engaging in a pursuit that results in injury to innocent civilians in both state AND federal court. (The federal court piece was what was really new about it) Why would a plaintiff prefer to be in federal court? Because they can get attorney’s fees tacked on to any verdict. Nothing wrong with that. We all know the rules. Having been on notice of Sauers (don’t miss the highlighted footnote), qualified immunity is not a viable defense. Finally, let me say something again that I have been saying for years – operating a police vehicle is the most dangerous thing you do in your job as a law enforcement officer. There was nothing I loved more than chasing someone when I pushed a car around for a living but, with the benefit of hindsight, I can honestly say I was lucky that neither me, nor any innocent civilians, were killed because of doing so. Chasing motorcycles, especially, is a low percentage undertaking. If you can choose not to pursue, please do that. If you can end a pursuit that already started, please do that. The lives you save may be your own, or an innocent child. -CB
Clark v. DM
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania January 28, 2021, Decided; January 28, 2021, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1579
Reporter 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16053 *
LYESHA CLARK, ET AL. v. DM , ET AL. In this civil rights action, a minor child and her niece sustained significant injuries after being struck by a dirt bike being pursued in an unauthorized high-speed police chase. On the morning of the accident, Defendant Police Officer DM , while working a special detail to confiscate dirt bikes and ATVs, was specifically ordered by his supervisors not to pursue dirt bike riders. Despite this clear prohibition, Officer DM engaged in an unauthorized high-speed [*2] chase of a dirt-bike rider. The chase resulted in an accident that injured innocent victims—Plaintiffs Lillie Mae Strubbs and minor Z.C. Plaintiffs bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer DM , alleging that the high-speed pursuit created a statecreated danger and violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Officer DM now seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The narrow issue before us is whether, at this early stage of the litigation, qualified immunity shields Officer DM from liability. We conclude that it does not.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2017, DM , a Philadelphia Police Officer, was on duty and assigned to a special detail to confiscate dirt bike and All-Terrain Vehicles ("ATVs") operated on Philadelphia streets.1 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.)2 At roll call, Officer DM 's supervisors, Lt. Ruff and Lt. Frisco, instructed all members of the special detail to not pursue ATVs or dirt bike riders, or any vehicle unless they witnessed a violent felony. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) Members of the special detail were provided copies of Philadelphia Police Directive 9.4, which strictly prohibits initiating a vehicular or ATV pursuit solely for traffic [*3] violations, and it advises that a police pursuit may not continue outside of the boundaries of Philadelphia without permission by a higher-ranking supervisor. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16-17; Directive 9.4 at 1-4, Am. Compl. Ex. B.) At about 1:05 p.m., Lt. Frisco spotted a green and white motorcycle and called for units to respond to it. (Report 18, Am. Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 10.) Several minutes later, Officer DM observed Douglass operating a green and white motorcycle on Philadelphia streets.3 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19.) Officer DM activated the lights and sirens on his marked police motorcycle and initiated a vehicle stop of Douglass. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 19.) Douglass did not stop. (Id. ¶ 20.) Douglass, followed by Officer DM , engaged in an eight-to-ten-minute high-speed chase, at times reaching
...alleging that the high-speed pursuit created a state-created danger and violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Officer DM now seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The narrow issue before us is whether, at this early stage of the litigation, qualified immunity shields Officer DM from liability.
60 miles per hour. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) At about 1:20 p.m., Officer DM began broadcasting his changing location. (Report 2-3, 19.) Three minutes later, over police radio, Lt. Frisco instructed Officer DM both to not pursue Douglass and "[l]et's try to get a last location and try to box him in."4 (Am. Compl. ¶ 30, 54; Report 2-3.) Officer DM continued to pursue Douglass and broadcast his location. [*4] (Am. Compl. ¶ 31; Report 3.) During the high-speed chase, Douglass, followed by Officer DM , drove through Southwest Philadelphia and crossed city lines into Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24.) Some of these areas were densely populated, and there were a lot of pedestrians and vehicles. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 34.) Officer DM did not have permission from a higher-ranking supervisor to continue the pursuit outside of the boundaries of Philadelphia into Upper Darby. (Id. ¶ 25.) Officer DM did not notify his supervisors that he had crossed into Upper Darby and he stopped broadcasting his location. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 35.) Meanwhile in Upper Darby, at 1:27 p.m., Lillie Mae Stubbs and her minor niece, Z.C., were crossing 69th Street in a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk near the 69th Street Transportation Center. (Id. ¶ 26.) While travelling northbound on 69th Street, Douglass struck Stubbs and Z.C. (Id. ¶ 27.) Stubbs and Z.C. were thrown about forty-two feet, lost consciousness, and sustained serious injuries. (Id.) Stubbs was taken to Penn Presbyterian Hospital with head and extremity injuries, and Z.C. was taken to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with head, neck, and extremity [*5] injuries. (Id. ¶ 57.) Stubbs and Z.C. underwent extensive treatment and continue to suffer from these injuries. (Id.) Approximately 26 seconds after the collision, Officer DM travelled through the pedestrian crosswalk, and past Stubbs and Z.C. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 37.) He did not stop and render aid or secure the scene of the accident, nor did he notify emergency services or Upper Darby Police of the injured persons, as directed by Philadelphia Police Directive 4.1. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38-39; Report 16.) Officer DM never notified his supervisors, police radio, or Upper Darby police about his pursuit of Douglass or Douglass's collision with Stubbs and Z.C. (Id.) Upper Darby police contacted Lt. Ruff and Lt. Frisco about the pursuit and the injuries sustained by Stubbs and Z.C. (Id. ¶ 44.) Lt. Ruff and Lt. Frisco each confronted Officer DM . (Id.) At first, Officer DM denied the pursuit of Douglass and he denied having seen Douglass's collision with Stubbs and Z.C. (Id.) Then, Officer DM admitted to the pursuit of Douglass on the green and white motorcycle, and he completed Philadelphia Police and Pennsylvania State Police pursuit memoranda. (Id. ¶ 47.) However, Officer [*6] DM stated in the memoranda that the pursuit only lasted for eight city blocks and two minutes, and he did not mention the collision. (Id.) Later, Officer DM explained that he did not previously report it accurately because "he was fearful of getting into trouble." (Id. ¶ 48.) An Internal Affairs Bureau investigation concluded that: (1) Officer DM was in violation of Directive 9.4; (2) Officer DM had falsified official documents; (3) Officer DM had committed insubordination; (4) Officer DM was in violation of Directive 4.1; and (5) Officer DM had provided false statements to a supervisor. (Am. Compl. ¶ 51; Report 15-21.) Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer DM . Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that by engaging in an unjustified and dangerous high-speed chase, Officer DM violated Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights—specifically the Fourteenth Amendment—by creating a state-created danger. Plaintiffs also assert a Monell claim against the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiffs' claim against the City is not at issue in this Motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain [*7] statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. A complaint that merely alleges entitlement to relief, without alleging facts that show entitlement, must be dismissed. See Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211. Courts need not accept "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements. . . ." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. at 679. This "'does not impose a probability requirement
at the pleading stage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal [*8] evidence of' the necessary element." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to Section 1983, Officer DM violated their substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that by engaging in an unjustified and reckless high-speed chase that was in violation of police directive, Officer DM 's conduct evinced a state-created danger that caused Plaintiffs' injuries. Officer DM argues that the Section 1983 claim against him should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages for conduct that "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (citation omitted). When assessing a claim for qualified immunity, we must answer two questions: "One is whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right. The other is whether the right at issue was clearly established when the conduct took place. We have discretion to address either inquiry first." Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning, 905 F.3d 711, 716 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing [*9] Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236). First, we address whether Officer DM had fair warning that he could be subject to constitutional liability for his pursuit of Douglass. We then address whether the Amended Complaint pleads a plausible Section 1983 claim against Officer DM .
A. Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights Were Clearly Established We begin by assessing whether Officer DM had fair warning that he could be subject to constitutional liability for his pursuit of Douglass. In other words, we must determine whether at the time of the accident, Officer DM had been put on notice that his actions violated constitution rights. "For a constitutional right to be clearly established, '[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.'" Starnes v. Butler Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 50th Judicial Dist., 971 F.3d 416, 426 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Courts must determine "if the case law at the time of the violation would have put the official on 'fair notice' that his conduct violated the plaintiff's rights.'" Id. (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). "In other words, the 'existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.'" Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). To determine whether a right is clearly established, we first [*10] look to applicable Supreme Court precedent. If none exists, then "it may be possible that a 'robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority' in the Courts of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 836 F.3d 235, 247-48 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). On April 15, 2017, the date of the accident, a police officer in the Third Circuit would have understood that he could be subjected to constitutional liability for a police pursuit if he acted with an intent to cause harm. Supreme Court precedent dictates this notice. In 1998, the Supreme Court held that "highspeed chases with no intent to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability under the Fourteenth Amendment, redressible by action under § 1983." Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 854 (1998). A year later, the Third Circuit similarly held that "[t]he critical factor in determining whether Fourteenth Amendment liability for a high-speed chase may be imposed is whether the officer's conduct can be found to shock the conscience, for which the evidence must show intent to harm the suspect physically." Davis v. Twp. of Hillside, 190 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). In light of Lewis and Davis, the standard of constitutional liability at the time of Officer DM 's unauthorized pursuit was whether police officer actions [*11] during a high-speed chase shock the conscience and evince an intent to cause harm.5See Wilson v. Doe, No. 19-5015, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62202, at *16 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2020) ("In light of [Lewis and Davis], the Court notes that at the time of the police pursuit in this matter [on October 25, 2017], the state of the law was such that police officers may have understood they could be exposed to constitutional liability for actions taken during a police pursuit only when they had an intent to harm.") (emphasis added). B. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pleads a Plausible State-created [*12] Danger Claim against Officer DM Next, we address whether the Amended Complaint pleads a plausible Section 1983 claim against Officer DM . The parties' dispute centers on whether the factual allegations support an inference that Officer DM acted with an intent to harm when he pursued Douglass.
Again, a purpose to cause harm in a police pursuit context is shown when a police officer "[intended] to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight." Lewis, 523 U.S. at 854. The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint plausibly support the inference that Officer DM acted with a purpose to cause harm. Officer DM 's dangerous pursuit of Douglass in defiance of a direct order from his supervisors earlier that day to not pursue any dirt bikes could support an inference that Officer DM acted with intent to harm. Undeterred by his supervisors' direct order, Officer DM pursued Douglass for eight to ten minutes, at 60 miles per hour, in the middle of the afternoon, near a major transportation center, and through densely populated areas with clearly marked pedestrian crosswalks. There was no urgency to pursue Douglass. In fact, Officer DM was specifically ordered not to pursue him. Officer [*13] DM 's dangerous and unauthorized pursuit of Douglass could support an inference that Officer DM acted with the requisite intent to harm. See, e.g., Johnson v. Balt. Police Dep't, No. 182375, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61052, at *36-37 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2020) (finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a purpose to cause harm where, "without observing any suspicious or ongoing criminal conduct," officers intentionally misused a police vehicle to "spe[e]d after [plaintiffs] down residential streets, running stop signs in five different intersections, without ever activating their vehicles' emergency equipment"); McGowan v. Cnty. of Kern, No. 15-01365, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96236, at *28-29 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2018) (finding that plaintiff had plausibly alleged a purpose to cause harm where officer drove through "an intersection [with no visibility] against a red light travelling at 85 miles per hour" even though there was no "necessity and urgency" that the officer respond to the call in this manner and there was "virtual certainty that he would kill someone and for a reason other than a legitimate law enforcement objective."). Officer DM 's repeated attempts to conceal, coverup or simply lie about the circumstances of his unauthorized pursuit of Douglass also support an inference that he acted with a purpose to cause harm. Plaintiffs allege that Officer DM actively and repeatedly [*14] attempted to conceal his pursuit of Douglass from his supervisors. When he crossed into Upper Darby, Officer DM did not notify his supervisors and he stopped broadcasting his location over police radio. When Officer DM ended his pursuit of Douglass, he re-entered Philadelphia and did not contact his supervisors, police radio, or Upper Darby police about the pursuit. His supervisors only learned of the pursuit when they were contacted by Upper Darby police. Then, when first
confronted by his supervisors, Officer DM denied the pursuit altogether. When confronted a second time by his supervisors, Officer DM admitted only to pursuing Douglass for eight city blocks. Officer DM even lied about the pursuit when completing official police memoranda. These facts support a plausible inference that Officer DM acted with the requisite intent to harm. See, e.g., Johnson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61052, at *36-37 (finding that plaintiffs' plausible allegation that officers had intentionally misused their vehicle was further "fortified" by the allegation that the officers had also "falsified police reports" to justify their pursuit after the fact); Knox v. City of Blue Ash, No. 08-577, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91639, at *12-13 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2009) (finding that plaintiff had plausibly alleged a purpose to cause harm [*15] where officer repeatedly lied to justify his pursuit); Black v. City of Blue Ash, No. 08-00584, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23751, at *17 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2009) (same). Moreover, Officer DM 's repeated lies suggests that his pursuit of Douglass did not have a "legitimate" law enforcement objective. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 836; Davis, 190 F.3d at 169. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint's factual allegations support a plausible theory that Officer DM acted with an intent to cause harm. At this juncture, we will permit Plaintiffs to proceed on a Section 1983 claim against Officer DM .
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Officer DM 's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint will be denied. An appropriate Order follows. 1 At the time, Officer Merrell had worked as a Philadelphia Police
Officer for twenty years. (Report 1,
Am. Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 10.) For
the last eight years, he had been assigned to the 16th District. (Id.) 2 When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in plaintiffs' complaint and construe the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Fowler v.
UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 21011 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009)).
The Court "consider[s] only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick, 605
F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs attached the following two exhibits to the Amended Complaint: the
Internal Affairs Division Investigation
Report ("Report") (Exhibit A); and
Philadelphia Police Department
Directive 9.4 ("Directive 9.4") (Exhibit B). 3 A motorcycle is considered a type of dirt bike. (See Report 3, 8, 11-12.) 4 Boxing in is a technique for stopping a fleeing vehicle by surrounding the fleeing vehicle with police vehicles. (Report 18.) This technique is prohibited by Directive 9.4. (Directive 9.4 at 5; Report 18.) The
Internal Affairs Division sustained a violation against Lt. Frisco for failing to recognize Officer Merrell's pursuit and for failing to correct or clarify the "box him in" recommendation. (Report 18.) 5 Acknowledging the high bar created by the intent-to-harm standard of liability, in October of 2018, the Third Circuit lowered the degree of culpability required to assert a police pursuit statecreated danger claim. In Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning, 905
F.3d 711, 723 (3d Cir. 2018), the Third
Circuit concluded:
Police officers now have fair warning that their conduct when engaged in a high-speed pursuit will be subject to the full body of our state-created danger case law. That law clearly establishes that the level of culpability required to shock the conscience exists on a spectrum tied to the amount of time a government official has to act. . . . [W]hen there is no compelling justification for an officer to engage in a high-speed pursuit and an officer has time to consider whether to engage in such inherently risky behavior, constitutional liability can arise when the officer proceeds to operate his vehicle in a manner that demonstrates a conscious disregard of a great risk of serious harm. Sauers was decided more than a year after Officer Merrell's unauthorized pursuit. Therefore, the conscious disregard standard does not apply here. Plaintiffs do not attempt to argue that it does. The material in this law alert has been prepared by Chris Boyle. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. To be removed from my list of subscribers who receive these complimentary Law Enforcement updates, utilize the “Unsubscribe” link below, or contact ChrisBoyle125@gmail.com . If however you continue to receive the alerts in error, please send a note to: ChrisBoyle125@gmail.com
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
The following is a list of bills that have been introduced that are of interest to the Association. This list does not consist of all bills related to police and criminal justice matters, as there are numerous bills coming in on a weekly basis. If you have knowledge of a bill or questions, please contact Jerry Miller, jmiller@pachiefs.org or Scott Bohn at sbohn@pachiefs.org.
Legislative Bills to Watch
HB 84 Miller, Daniel(D) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) in juvenile matters, providing for instructions upon arrest and custody.
Remarks: Simplified Miranda Rights for Minors Last Action: 1-11-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 103 Schmitt, Lou(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in assault, providing for the offense of harassment of law enforcement officer; and imposing penalties.
Remarks: provides that if a person intentionally or knowingly causes the officer to come into contact with saliva or other bodily fluid by throwing, tossing, or spitting the bodily fluid, the person would commit a criminal offense. If the individual knew, should have known, or believed such fluid or material had been obtained from an individual who was infected by a communicable disease the offense is a felony of the third degree. In any other situation the offense is graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 112 Miller, Daniel(D) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in licensing of drivers, providing for digitized driver's licenses.
Last Action: 1-11-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 113 Stambaugh, Perry (F)(R) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in general provisions, for obedience to authorized persons directing traffic and providing for drivers in organized motorcycle processions; and, in rules of the road, providing for following too closely.
Remarks: Establishes that except in first or second class cities, drivers in organized motorcycle processions may park or stand or proceed past a red signal indication if the lead vehicle started through the intersection. Establishes that provisions relating to following too closely shall not apply to drivers in funeral processions or organized motorcycle processions Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the Tabled Calendar
HB 133 Rothman, Greg(R) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in penalties and disposition of fines, further providing for surcharge; providing for automated license plate reader systems; imposing penalties; and establishing the ALPR Equipment Fund.
Last Action: 1-12-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 134 Rothman, Greg(R) Amends Titles 44 (Law & Justice) and 75 (Vehicles), codifying prohibition on political subdivisions and Commonwealth agencies imposing quotas on the issuance of citations for certain offenses and prohibiting the practice of station averaging.
Last Action: 1-12-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 146 Bernstine, Aaron(R) Amends Title 61 (Prisons and Parole), in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, further providing for parole power.
Remarks: to preclude the parole board from prematurely releasing an inmate at the expiration of his minimum sentence if the inmate was convicted of a violent offense while incarcerated. Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 156 Owlett, Clint(R) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary), in depositions and witnesses, further providing for admissibility of certain statements.
Remarks: depositions and witnesses, providing that an out-of-court statement made by a child victim who at the time of the statement was 16 years of age or younger describing any offenses is admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 163 Staats, Craig(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses) in other offenses, further providing for the offense of invasion of privacy.
Remarks: "Upskirting" - to increase the charges that can be brought against teachers and adults who victimize students and minors by transferring, transmitting or receiving an image or video in violation of the statute by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored. Makes the offense a felony of the third degree for a first violation and a felony of the second degree for subsequent offenses. Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 184 Keefer, Dawn(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in criminal homicide, further providing for the offense of causing or aiding suicide.
Remarks: any individual who intentionally aids or solicits another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony of the second degree if his conduct causes such suicide; otherwise, the offense is graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree. Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 185 Struzzi, James(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in assault, further providing for the offense of aggravated assault.
Remarks: Cody’s Law to Protect Those That Cannot Protect Themselves (Former HB 2056) amends Section 2702 (relating to aggravated assault) of the Crimes Code to provide that any individual that intentionally causes bodily injury to a person with a physical or intellectual disability is guilty of aggravated assault, a felony of the second degree. Last Action: 3-15-21 H Set on the House Calendar
HB 204 Gainey, Ed(D) Amends the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, further providing for prohibited acts and penalties.
Remarks: would downgrade the possession of a small amount of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a summary offense. Last Action: 1-22-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 233 Warren, Perry(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in criminal history record information, further providing for expungement.
Remarks: legislation will delay expungement by five years for individuals who have received ARD for any offense that was committed in the presence of a child under the age of 14. Such individuals may still participate in the ARD program, but the five year time period prior to expungement of the offense will ensure that parents and childcare providers can fully analyze a person’s background before entrusting him or her to watch over a child. Last Action: 1-25-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 235 Warren, Perry(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for sale or transfer of firearms.
Remarks: legislation will eliminate the “gun show loophole” in the Commonwealth to ensure that all firearm sales must be subject to a background check. The legislation would not require a background check for firearms transfers between direct family members Last Action: 1-25-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 237 Warren, Perry(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in firearms and other dangerous articles, providing for safe storage of a firearm when residing with a person not to possess a firearm.
Remarks: legislation would require firearm owners to safely store all of their firearms when residing with a person who cannot legally possess a firearm, requiring firearm owners to be responsible in ensuring that their guns do not fall into the wrong hands. Last Action: 1-25-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 246 Mihalek, Natalie(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) in human trafficking, further providing for evidence and defenses to human trafficking.
Remarks: will amend the Human Trafficking statute, specifically Section 3018 of Title 18, to prohibit defendants from introducing evidence of a human trafficking victim’s past sexual victimization and allegations of past sexual victimization in any prosecution arising under Chapter 30 (relating to human trafficking Last Action: 1-25-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 248 Miller, Daniel(D) Amends Titles 18 (Crimes & Offenses), 34 (Game), 42 (Judiciary) & 75 (Vehicles), in human trafficking, for restitution; in sentencing, for fines; repealing provisions; for license; in financial responsibility, for defs.
Last Action: 1-25-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 254 Toohil, Tarah(R) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary), in availability of otherwise confidential information, providing for reports on domestic violence by law enforcement agencies.
Last Action: 1-26-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 271 Shusterman, Melissa(D) Amends title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in inchoate crimes, for prohibited offensive weapons; in assault, for discharge of a firearm; in firearms & other dangerous articles, for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell, trade.
Remarks: legislation would ensure a 3D-printed firearm is treated as standard firearm under law and is subject to all standing regulation. In addition, my proposal would prohibit anyone from printing a firearm without a license from the federal government to manufacture firearms. Last Action: 1-26-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 279 Burgos, Danilo(D) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in licensing of drivers, further providing for application for driver's license or learner's permit, for issuance and content of driver's license and for expiration and renewal of drivers' licenses.
Remarks: Helping Undocumented Residents Secure a Driver’s License. legislation allowing individuals without a Social Security Number to apply for a driver’s license or learner’s permit using secure alternatives such as a federal taxpayer identification number or any combination of documents that reliably proves the applicant’s name and date of birth. Last Action: 1-27-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 298 Diamond, Russ(R) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in miscellaneous provisions relating to operation of vehicles, further providing for accident reports by police.
Remarks: Former HB 381 to increase the fee for a local police report of a vehicle accident as permitted under § 3751 of Title 75. Currently, the maximum fee local police departments are permitted to charge for furnishing a copy of an accident report is $15. This figure was set in 1992 and inflation would dictate that the same figure should now be $27.42. Current law allows for a $25 fee in a city of the first class, but the rest of our local police departments are capped at $15. My legislation increases that maximum fee to $22 to be in-line with the cost of a state police report, and allows police departments to issue an initial basic report to help victims file timely insurance claims. Last Action: 1-27-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 334 Jozwiak, Barry(R) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in registration of vehicles, further providing for display of registration plate.
Remarks: legislation (Previous House Bill 1509) that will require PennDot to issue registration expiration stickers on Pennsylvania registration plates. Last Action: 1-29-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 349 Krueger, Leanne(D) Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) in employees, providing for police canine training standards.
Remarks: legislation aims to better standardize municipal K-9 team training in Pennsylvania by requiring the Municipal Police Officer’s Education and Training Commission to work together with the State Police to establish K-9 team and K-9 specialty team training and certification standards following those used by the United States Police Canine Association. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 352 Isaacson, Mary(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in sexual offenses, providing for the offense of unsolicited dissemination of intimate image.
Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 361 Isaacson, Mary(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 53 (Municipalities)
in firearms, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition: and in general home role provisions, providing for limitation on municipal powers.
Remarks: legislation that would allow political subdivisions to regulate the possession and transportation of firearms when carried or transported on public grounds, including but not limited to: buildings, parks, and conveyances or vehicles. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 378 Davis, Austin(D) Act providing for a prohibition on employer prescreening of criminal records and history of job applicants; establishing the Ex-offender Increased Access to Employment Enforcement
Fund; and imposing penalties. Remarks: legislation will give people with criminal records a fair chance at employment, by prohibiting any employer from inquiring about a criminal history until a conditional offer of employment has been made to the applicant. Employers who are required by state or federal law to inquire about criminal histories will still be allowed to do so at the appropriate and required time. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Labor and Industry
HB 380 Davis, Austin(D) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in other required equipment, further providing for windshield obstructions and wipers; and abrogating regulations.
Remarks: legislation to lessen window tinting restrictions in our state. bill would remove window tinting restrictions for rear windows on all vehicles to modernize our laws, to make our laws uniform, and to help those with light sensitivity. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 382 Davis, Austin(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), in criminal history record information, further providing for expungement.
Remarks: Automatic Expungement of Criminal and Driving Records legislation would make it easier for pardoned individuals to have their rights and privileges fully restored Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 383 Davis, Austin(D) Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally), in general provisions, providing for Municipal Police Enhancement Consolidation Grant Program and establishing the Municipal Police Enhancement Consolidation Grant Program Fund.
Remarks: legislation to create the Municipal Police Enhancement and Consolidation Program to encourage reasonable consolidation, provide funding for training, and ensure police officers have access to the services they need to successfully perform their duties. This legislation charges the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) with oversight of a vital new program that will make grants available to municipal police departments for the following: Consolidation (25% of funding); Achieving accreditation standards of the International Association of Chiefs of Police or similar accrediting authority; Training and certification of municipal police officers; Community outreach programs; and Enhanced mental health services for municipal police officers. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Local Government
HB 393 Sims, Brian(D) Amends Title 18(Crimes and Offenses) in firearms and other dangerous articles, for retail dealer required to be licensed and for licensing of dealers and providing for ammunition purchase authorization permits and transporting ammunition
Remarks: legislation that would only allow licensed firearms dealers to sell ammunition and would allow businesses to use existing licenses to sell both firearms and ammunition. When a person wishes to purchase ammunition, the licensee would contact the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS), and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) would conduct a background investigation. Last Action: 2- 3-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 413 Zabel, Michael(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), in firearms and other dangerous articles, providing for a limit on handgun purchases; and establishing the Violence Prevention Account.
Remarks: legislation would place a limit on purchases of handguns in Pennsylvania, allowing one handgun per individual within any 30-day period - with exceptions for licensed firearm dealers, licensed firearm collectors, law enforcement and correction facilities, licensed private security companies, antique firearms and stolen firearms, as well as a pathway for civilians to earn advance permission to purchase more than one gun during a 30-day period. Last Action: 2- 4-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 414 Zabel, Michael(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), in firearms and other dangerous articles, providing for the offense of undetectable firearms.
Remarks: Prohibiting Undetectable Firearms Last Action: 2- 4-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 431 DeLuca, Anthony(D) Act providing for the termination of law enforcement officers upon testing positive for a controlled substance.
Remarks: The Law Enforcement Officer Drug Screening Act provides police officers, probation officers, prison guards, parole officers or any individual with arrest powers in the commonwealth who has tested positive for a controlled substance shall be terminated. Last Action: 2- 8-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Labor and Industry
HB 469 Daley, Mary Jo(D) Amends Title 61 (Prisons & Parole), for State recording system for application of restraints to pregnant prisoners or detainees; and in miscellaneous provisions, further providing for healthy birth for incarcerated women.
Last Action: 2- 9-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 479 Howard, Kristine(D) Amends Title 23 (Domestic Relations) and 42 (Judiciary), in protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief; and, in protection of victims of sexual violence or intimidation, further providing for relief.
Remarks: would amend Titles 23 (Domestic Relations) and Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) by clearly outlining the types of communication that are prohibited after a restraining order is put in place, including: attempts to contact in person, by phone, e-mail or social media, including following or requests to follow public web pages, or knowingly attending events where the victim will be in attendance. Last Action: 2- 9-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 487 Howard, Kristine(D) Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary) in assault, further providing for the offense of ethnic intimidation; and making an editorial change.
Remarks: legislation that adds “intellectual or physical disability” to the list of elements that prosecutors can consider when contemplating hate crime charges. Last Action: 2- 9-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
HB 606 Rothman, Greg(R) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in rules of the road in general, further providing for speed timing devices.
Remarks: a local police department, both part-time and full-time, would be permitted to use RADAR/LIDAR contingent upon the following: A municipality would need to first pass an ordinance authorizing the use of RADAR/LIDAR. A municipality must install signs advertising the use of RADAR/LIDAR at the municipality’s border. The municipal share of revenue collected from fines may not exceed 10% of the municipality’s budget for the previous budget year. Local police officers would be required to complete a training course before use. RADAR/LIDAR may only be used when the officer is in or adjacent to a clearly marked law enforcement vehicle. Only written warnings for violations are permitted for the first 90 days of enforcement using RADAR/LIDAR. 02-19-21 H Filed Last Action: 02-24-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Transportation
HB 488 Boback, Karen(R) Amends Title 18 (Crime and Offenses) in offenses against the family, further providing for the offense of endangering welfare of children.
Remarks: will require a report to be made about a missing child within 24 hours after his or her whereabouts became unknown, but will also require proof that parent’s silence exhibited a reckless disregard for a risk of harm to a child, or for the child’s health, safety, or welfare under the circumstances. The requirement that the parent act with recklessness will, for example, protect a divorced parent who may not have knowledge of their child’s whereabouts, but who has a reason to believe the child is with the other parent or at a friend’s. That would not amount to recklessness even if, in hindsight, the belief could be considered unreasonable Last Action: 2- 9-21 H Introduced and referred to committee on House Judiciary
SB 36 Phillips-Hill, Kristin (F)(R) Amends the Dog Law, in licenses, tags and kennels, further providing for transfer of dog licenses or tags and other licensing requirements and for service dogs and dogs used by municipal or State Police departments.
Remarks: Amends the Dog Law waiving the cost of dog licensure for individuals that use a service dog for aid or for municipal or state police departments or agencies that use the dog in the performance of the functions and duties of the department or agency. Last Action: 2- 5-21 S Rereferred to Senate Appropriations
SB 43 Hughes, Vincent(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in falsification and intimidation, further providing for false reports to law enforcement authorities.
Remarks: Would deter racially and ethnically motivated 911 calls. Too often police are called to respond to the innocuous activities of black and brown citizens, such as waiting in a Starbucks, using the private pool in a gated community, napping in a dorm common area, or even golfing. This legislation would criminalize making a false report to law enforcement based solely on the alleged race or ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator. Last Action: 1-20-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 45 Hughes, Vincent(D) Act providing for the adoption of a Statewide model policy related to the prevention of excessive force by law enforcement officers and school security personnel.
Remarks: would create a more explicit and just standard for the use of force by police. Included in this standard would be: Requiring the exhaustion of all reasonable alternatives before using force; Requiring the use of force be reported, including when force has been threatened but not used; Banning chokeholds and strangleholds; Establishing a use of force continuum that limits the type of force and weapons that can be used for specific types of resistance; Requiring the use of de-escalation measures prior to the use of force; Establishing a duty to intervene and stop excessive force by another officer, as well as immediately reporting incidents to a supervisor; Banning shooting at a moving vehicle; and, Requiring a warning be given prior to the use of fatal force. Last Action: 1-20-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Law and Justice
SB 79 Hughes, Vincent(D) Amends Title 46 (Legislature), providing for racial impact statements in consideration of legislation.
Remarks: reintroducing Senate Bill 1197 from the 2019-2020 legislative session. The bill would allow a member of the General Assembly to request a racial impact statement on any piece of legislation proposing changes to the crimes and offenses in Title 18 or the sentencing laws in Title 42. Last Action: 1-22-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate State Government
SB 81 Langerholc, Wayne(R) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary), in depositions and witnesses, further providing for expert testimony in certain criminal proceedings.
Remarks: re-introduce legislation, Senate Bill 1170, which will amend the Judicial Code to permit the Commonwealth to call expert witnesses in cases of domestic violence and human trafficking in order to explain victim behavior. Last Action: 2- 4-21 H Received in the House and referred to House JudiciarySB 87 Baker, Lisa(R) Amends Titles 18 (Crimes & Offenses), 23 (Domestic Relations) & 42 (Judiciary), in minors, for offense of sexual abuse; in child protective services, for task force; and, in sentencing, for offenses involving sexual abuse of children. Remarks: legislation that will: Increase penalties for those convicted of child pornography, where those images or videos depict a victim that is younger than 10 years of age, or prepubescent; and Permit the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to provide a sentence enhancement for those convicted of the sexual abuse of children, when the person depicted is known to the defendant; and Establish a two-year, 23-member Task Force on Child Pornography. Several of the members have experience in the treatment of victims and prevention of child pornography and child sexual abuse. The Task Force will develop a report with guidance, tools, and actionable items for sexual abuse prevention and intervention mechanisms. Last Action: 1-28-21 H Received in the House and referred to House Judiciary
SB 88 Hughes, Vincent(D) Amends Title 18 (Crimes & Offenses), in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for sale or transfer of firearms.
Remarks: reintroduce Senate Bill 88 from last session. This legislation eliminates most of the exceptions to the requirement of a background check prior to the purchase or transfer of a firearm. The close familial transfer exception to the background check requirements would remain under this legislation. Last Action: 1-22-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 105 Street, Sharif(D) Amends Title 44 (Law & Justice), in preliminary provisions, providing for limitations on procurement of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
Remarks: A local law enforcement agency may not, regardless of the source of funding, procure military equipment from or through a Federal program, State program, third party, law enforcement foundation or organization or any other person or by any other means unless: (1) The local law enforcement agency requests written approval for the procurement from the governing body of the municipality that the local law enforcement agency serves. (2) The local law enforcement agency publishes notice of Last Action: 1-22-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Law and Justice
SB 107 Street, Sharif(D) Amends the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, further providing for prohibited acts and penalties.
Remarks: Decriminalization of Cannabis in Pennsylvania reintroduce SB233 from the previous session which amends Pennsylvania's Controlled Substances Act changing the grading of possession of a "small amount" of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a summary offense. Last Action: 1-22-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 114 Boscola, Lisa(D) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in miscellaneous provisions, repealing provisions relating to snow and ice dislodged or falling from moving vehicle and providing for snow and ice.
Remarks: legislation that would require all motorists driving in Pennsylvania to clear snow and ice from the top of their vehicles before driving on our roadways. Last Action: 1-28-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Transportation
SB 127 Fontana, Wayne(D) Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) in general provisions relating to government and administration, providing for law enforcement review boards.
Remarks: creates a Civilian Police Review Board Last Action: 1-26-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Law and Justice
SB 134 Fontana, Wayne(D) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure)in actions, proceedings and other matters generally, providing for extreme risk protection orders.
Remarks: Extreme Risk Protection Order grants family members and law enforcement the ability to petition a court to temporarily suspend an individual’s access to firearms if there is documented evidence that an individual is a threatening harm to themselves or others. The person subject to that order must surrender their guns to police and will not be able to buy, sell, or possess other firearms with a judge determining the time frame of this suspension not to exceed one year. Last Action: 1-27-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 137 Hutchinson, Scott(R) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) in budget and finance, establishing the Drug Recognition Expert Training Fund.
Remarks: establishes a special fund in the State Treasury may only be used for purposes of drug recognition expert training, which shall include training of law enforcement officers to detect if an individual is impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, drugs, narcotics, controlled substances Last Action: 2- 1-21 S Meeting cancelled for 02/02/21, Senate Judiciary
SB 138 Bartolotta, Camera(R) Amends Title 61 (Prisons & Parole), in general admin., for State recording system for application of restraints; and, in misc. provisions, for restrictive housing prohibited, for feminine hygiene, for postpartum recovery & education.
Remarks: Applies to Sheriff's, Constables and all law enforcement agencies, to establish guidelines intended to protect the health and safety of pregnant inmates. Safety measures will include limits on shackling and body cavity searches, as well as the provision of appropriate prenatal nutrition and a bed not elevated more than three feet from the floor. The bill will ensure that female inmates have access to menstrual hygiene products at no cost to the inmate. Last Action: 1-28-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 142 Street, Sharif(D) Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally), in employees, providing for use of force and deadly force policy for law enforcement agencies.
Remarks: legislation that will prohibit the use of chokeholds by those in law enforcement. Last Action: 1-28-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 146 Langerholc, Wayne(R) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) in assault, providing for the offense of hate crimes against law enforcement officers and first responders.
Remarks: bill will create a new offense specifically targeted at persons, who commit crimes against law enforcement officers or first responders, who are motivated by their hatred toward the police. Last Action: 1-29-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Judiciary
SB 148 Ward, Judy (F)(R) Amends the Police Officer, Firefighter, Correction Employee and National Guard Member Child Beneficiary Education Act, extending benefits to certain surviving spouses; and Postsecondary Educational Gratuity Program & report.
Remarks: By amending the act, the benefits of the tuition free program will also apply to surviving spouses of police officers, correction employees, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, National Guard members and certain other individuals on active military duty who are killed in the line of duty. Last Action: 2- 1-21 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Education
SB 158 Regan, Mike(R) Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally), in employees, providing for medals honoring law enforcement officers.
Last Action: 2- 5-21 S Rereferred to Senate Appropriations
