[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1553-S1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. 
             Leahy):
  S. 348. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to encourage States to enact a Law Enforcement 
Officers' Bill of Rights, to provide standards and protection for the 
conduct of internal police investigations, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


        THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1997

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, American families turn on the 
news every night and get bombarded by the reality that the war against 
crime and drugs is escalating. No one understands the dangers of this 
domestic war better than the men and women who serve on the front 
lines. I'm talking about our Nation's police officers.
  These dedicated individuals offer up their lives as an act of service 
every day. They know the stress and the strain of walking the daily 
beat, of being caught in the crossfire in a world of gangs and drugs. 
These officers experience first-hand the casualties of our national 
epidemic.
  As the Washington Post reported this Sunday, seven law enforcement 
officers right here in the Nation's Capital have been killed--in little 
more than 2 years. Moreover, the ambush of these ``men and women 
wearing badges [occurred]--even though the officers posed no immediate 
threat to their attackers.''
  Our Nation's police officers endure unfathomable pressure every day 
as they fight to take back our streets. In the words of one officer, 
``the ultimate sacrifice could occur at any time. * * * [The gangs and 
criminals] have rewritten the rule book.''
  To make matters worse, the pressure of crime and drugs--of gangs and 
thugs--is multiplied by the fear of unjust disciplinary actions. Our 
law enforcement officers face intrusive investigations into their 
professional and personal lives--oftentimes at the behest of some 
recently arrested criminal looking for a payback.
  Our officers live in the fear of: being investigated without notice; 
being interrogated without an attorney; and being dismissed without a 
hearing.
  We must act now to address this situation by guaranteeing our police 
officers their basic and fundamental rights. So, today, along with Mr. 
Biden and Mr. Leahy, I proudly introduce the Law Enforcement Officers' 
Bill of Rights.
  This bill protects rights that most of us take for granted. For 
example, it allows police officers to be involved in, or refrain from, 
political activity.
  The bill also gives significant due process rights to every police 
officer subject to investigation for noncriminal disciplinary action. 
Some of these rights include:
  The right to be informed of the administrative charges prior to being 
questioned; the right to be advised of the results of an investigation; 
the right to a hearing and an opportunity to respond; and the right to 
be represented by counsel or other representative.
  We owe our law enforcement officers a national debt of gratitude for 
their valiant fight in a battle that must be won. I ask my colleagues 
to show their appreciation and understanding of the plight of our 
police force. We must act boldly to equip every officer with basic and 
fundamental rights.
  Finally, I must conclude by explaining that this bill is a product of 
years of input from the men and women who have experienced these daily 
pressures, and continue to endure them. This legislation has benefited 
from the thoughtful ideas and past support of many law enforcement 
groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood 
of Police Officers.

[[Page S1554]]

  In particular, I am grateful to the contribution made by the 
Fraternal Order of Police. Over the past 6 years, I have worked closely 
with the Kentucky FOP to develop and promote this legislation. Seasoned 
and well-informed officers like Ray Franklin and Mike Hettich, both of 
whom are National FOP officers from my home State, have worked with me 
in refining the language of this bill and developing grassroots 
momentum. I would also like to say a personal word of thanks to Verlin 
Flaherty, Rick McCubbin, and Martin Scott.
  The time has come to protect those who protect us. We must give our 
law enforcement officers the basic and fundamental rights that they 
desperately need and deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 348

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers' 
     Bill of Rights Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Part H of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3781 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 820. RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Disciplinary action.--The term `disciplinary action' 
     means the suspension, demotion, reduction in pay or other 
     employment benefit, dismissal, transfer, or similar action 
     taken against a law enforcement officer as punishment for 
     misconduct.
       ``(2) Disciplinary hearing.--The term `disciplinary 
     hearing' means an administrative hearing initiated by a law 
     enforcement agency against a law enforcement officer, based 
     on probable cause to believe that the officer has violated or 
     is violating a rule, regulation, or procedure related to 
     service as an officer and is subject to disciplinary action.
       ``(3) Emergency suspension.--The term `emergency 
     suspension' means temporary action imposed by the head of the 
     law enforcement agency if that official determines that there 
     is probable cause to believe that a law enforcement officer--
       ``(A) has committed a felony; or
       ``(B) poses an immediate threat to the safety of the 
     officer or others or the property of others.
       ``(4) Investigation.--The term `investigation'--
       ``(A) means the action of a law enforcement agency, acting 
     alone or in cooperation with another agency, or a division or 
     unit within an agency, or the action of an individual law 
     enforcement officer, taken with respect to another 
     enforcement officer, if such action is based on reasonable 
     suspicion that the law enforcement officer has violated, is 
     violating, or will in the future violate a statute or 
     ordinance, or administrative rule, regulation, or procedure 
     relating to service as a law enforcement officer; and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i) asking questions of other law enforcement officers or 
     nonlaw enforcement officers;
       ``(ii) conducting observations;
       ``(iii) evaluating reports, records, or other documents; 
     and
       ``(iv) examining physical evidence.
       ``(5) Law enforcement agency.--The term `law enforcement 
     agency' means a State or local public agency charged by law 
     with the duty to prevent or investigate crimes or apprehend 
     or hold in custody persons charged with or convicted of 
     criminal offenses.
       ``(6) Law enforcement officer.--The terms `law enforcement 
     officer' and `officer'--
       ``(A) mean a member of a law enforcement agency serving in 
     a law enforcement position, which is usually indicated by 
     formal training (regardless of whether the officer has 
     completed or been assigned to such training) and is usually 
     accompanied by the power to make arrests; and
       ``(B) include--
       ``(i) a member who serves full-time, whether probationary 
     or nonprobationary, commissioned or noncommissioned, career 
     or noncareer, tenured or nontenured, and merit or nonmerit; 
     and
       ``(ii) the chief law enforcement officer of a law 
     enforcement agency.
       ``(7) Summary punishment.--The term `summary punishment' 
     means punishment imposed for a minor violation of a rule, 
     regulation, or procedure of a law enforcement agency that 
     does not result in suspension, demotion, reduction in pay or 
     other employment benefit, dismissal, or transfer.
       ``(b) Application of Section.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section sets forth rights that 
     shall be afforded any law enforcement officer who is the 
     subject of an investigation.
       ``(2) Nonapplicability.--This section does not apply in the 
     case of--
       ``(A) a criminal investigation of the conduct of a law 
     enforcement officer; or
       ``(B) a nondisciplinary action taken in good faith on the 
     basis of the employment related performance of a law 
     enforcement officer.
       ``(c) Political Activity.--Except if on duty or acting in 
     an official capacity, no law enforcement officer shall be 
     prohibited from engaging in political activity or be denied 
     the right to refrain from engaging in such activity.
       ``(d) Rights of Law Enforcement Officers Under 
     Investigation.--If a law enforcement officer is under 
     investigation that could lead to disciplinary action, each of 
     the following minimum standards shall apply:
       ``(1) Notice of investigation.--A law enforcement officer 
     shall be notified of the investigation within a reasonable 
     time after the commencement of the investigation. Notice 
     shall include the general nature and scope of the 
     investigation and all departmental violations for which 
     reasonable suspicion exists. No investigation based on a 
     complaint from outside the law enforcement agency may 
     commence unless the complainant provides a signed detailed 
     statement. An investigation based on a complaint from outside 
     the agency shall commence not later than 15 days after 
     receipt of the complaint by the agency.
       ``(2) Notice of investigative findings and recommendation 
     for disciplinary action.--At the conclusion of the 
     investigation, the person in charge of the investigation 
     shall inform the law enforcement officer under investigation, 
     in writing, of the investigative findings and any 
     recommendation for disciplinary action that the person 
     intends to make.
       ``(e) Rights of Law Enforcement Officers Before and During 
     Questioning.--If a law enforcement officer is subjected to 
     questioning that could lead to disciplinary action, each of 
     the following minimum standards shall apply:
       ``(1) Reasonable hours.--Questioning of a law enforcement 
     officer shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably 
     during the time that the law enforcement officer is on duty, 
     unless exigent circumstances otherwise require.
       ``(2) Place of questioning.--Questioning of the law 
     enforcement officer shall take place at the offices of the 
     persons who are conducting the investigation or the place 
     where the law enforcement officer reports for duty, unless 
     the officer consents in writing to being questioned 
     elsewhere.
       ``(3) Identification of questioner.--The law enforcement 
     officer under investigation shall be informed, at the 
     commencement of any questioning, of the name, rank, and 
     command of the officer conducting the questioning.
       ``(4) Single questioner.--During any single period of 
     questioning of the law enforcement officer, all questions 
     shall be asked by or through a single investigator.
       ``(5) Notice of nature of investigation.--The law 
     enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in 
     writing of the nature of the investigation not less than 72 
     hours before any questioning.
       ``(6) Reasonable time period.--Any questioning of a law 
     enforcement officer in connection with an investigation shall 
     be for a reasonable period of time and shall allow for 
     reasonable periods for the rest and personal necessities of 
     the law enforcement officer.
       ``(7) No threats or promises.--Threats against, harassment 
     of, or promise of reward shall not be made in connection with 
     an investigation to induce the answering of any question. No 
     statement given by the officer may be used in a subsequent 
     criminal proceeding unless the officer has received a written 
     grant of use and derivative use immunity or transactional 
     immunity.
       ``(8) Recordation.--All questioning of any law enforcement 
     officer in connection with the investigation shall be 
     recorded in full, in writing or by electronic device, and a 
     copy of the transcript shall be made available to the officer 
     under investigation.
       ``(9) Counsel.--The law enforcement officer under 
     investigation shall be entitled to counsel (or any other one 
     person of the officer's choice) during any questioning of the 
     officer, unless the officer consents in writing to being 
     questioned outside the presence of counsel.
       ``(f) Disciplinary Hearing.--
       ``(1) Notice of opportunity for hearing.--Except in a case 
     of summary punishment or emergency suspension described in 
     subsection (h), if an investigation of a law enforcement 
     officer results in a recommendation of disciplinary action, 
     the law enforcement agency shall notify the law enforcement 
     officer that the law enforcement officer is entitled to a 
     hearing on the issue by a hearing officer or board before the 
     imposition of any disciplinary action.
       ``(2) Requirement of determination of violation.--No 
     disciplinary action may be taken unless a hearing officer or 
     board determines, pursuant to a fairly conducted disciplinary 
     hearing, that the law enforcement officer violated a statute, 
     ordinance, or published administrative rule, regulation, or 
     procedure.
       ``(3) Time limit.--No disciplinary charges may be brought 
     against a law enforcement officer unless filed not later than 
     90 days after the commencement of an investigation, except 
     for good cause shown.
       ``(4) Notice of filing of charges.--The law enforcement 
     agency shall provide written, actual notification to the law 
     enforcement officer, not later than 30 days after the

[[Page S1555]]

     filing of disciplinary charges, of the following:
       ``(A) Date, time, and location of hearing.--The date, time, 
     and location of the disciplinary hearing, which shall take 
     place not sooner than 30 days and not later than 60 days 
     after notification to the law enforcement officer under 
     investigation unless waived in writing by the officer.
       ``(B) Information relating to hearing officer.--The full 
     name and mailing address of the hearing officer.
       ``(C) Information relating to prosecutor.--The name, rank, 
     and command of the prosecutor, if a law enforcement officer, 
     or the name, position, and mailing address of the prosecutor, 
     if not a law enforcement officer.
       ``(5) Representation.--During a disciplinary hearing, an 
     officer shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or 
     other representative.
       ``(6) Hearing board and procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a State 
     shall determine the composition of a disciplinary hearing 
     board and the procedures for a disciplinary hearing.
       ``(B) Membership.--A disciplinary hearing board that 
     includes employees of the law enforcement agency of which the 
     officer who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall 
     include not less than 1 law enforcement officer of equal or 
     lesser rank to the officer who is the subject of the hearing.
       ``(7) Access to evidence.--A law enforcement officer who is 
     brought before a disciplinary hearing board shall be provided 
     access to all transcripts, records, written statements, 
     written reports, analyses, and electronically recorded 
     information pertinent to the case that--
       ``(A) contain exculpatory information;
       ``(B) are intended to support any disciplinary action; or
       ``(C) are to be introduced in the disciplinary hearing.
       ``(8) Identification of witnesses.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall notify 
     the law enforcement officer, or his attorney if he is 
     represented by counsel, not later than 15 days before the 
     hearing, of the name and addresses of all witnesses for the 
     law enforcement agency.
       ``(9) Copy of investigative file.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall provide 
     to the law enforcement officer, upon the request of the law 
     enforcement officer, not later than 15 days before the 
     hearing, a copy of the investigative file, including all 
     exculpatory and inculpatory information, except that the law 
     enforcement agency may exclude confidential sources, unless 
     the law enforcement officer is entitled to such sources under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (7).
       ``(10) Examination of physical evidence.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall notify 
     the law enforcement officer, at the request of the officer, 
     not later than 15 days before the hearing, of all physical, 
     nondocumentary evidence, and provide reasonable date, time, 
     place, and manner for the officer to examine such evidence 
     not less than 10 days before the hearing.
       ``(11) Summonses.--The hearing board shall have the power 
     to issue summonses to compel testimony of witnesses and 
     production of documentary evidence. If confronted with a 
     failure to comply with a summons, the hearing officer or 
     board may petition a court to issue an order, with failure to 
     comply being subject to contempt of court.
       ``(12) Closed hearing.--A disciplinary hearing shall be 
     closed to the public unless the law enforcement officer who 
     is the subject of the hearing requests, in writing, that the 
     hearing be open to specified individuals or the general 
     public.
       ``(13) Recordation.--All aspects of a disciplinary hearing, 
     including prehearing motions, shall be recorded by audio 
     tape, video tape, or transcription.
       ``(14) Sequestration of witnesses.--Either side in a 
     disciplinary hearing may move for and be entitled to 
     sequestration of witnesses.
       ``(15) Testimony under oath.--The hearing officer or board 
     shall administer an oath or affirmation to each witness, who 
     shall testify subject to the applicable laws of perjury.
       ``(16) Verdict on each charge.--At the conclusion of all 
     the evidence, and after oral argument from both sides, the 
     hearing officer or board shall deliberate and render a 
     verdict on each charge.
       ``(17) Burden of persuasion.--The burden of persuasion of 
     the prosecutor shall be by clear and convincing evidence as 
     to each charge involving false representation, fraud, 
     dishonesty, deceit, or criminal behavior and by a 
     preponderance of the evidence as to all other charges.
       ``(18) Finding of not guilty.--If the law enforcement 
     officer is found not guilty of the disciplinary violations, 
     the matter is concluded and no disciplinary action may be 
     taken.
       ``(19) Finding of guilty.--If the law enforcement officer 
     is found guilty, the hearing officer or board shall make a 
     written recommendation of a penalty. The sentencing authority 
     may not impose greater than the penalty recommended by the 
     hearing officer or board.
       ``(20) Appeal.--A law enforcement officer may appeal from a 
     final decision of a law enforcement agency to a court to the 
     extent available in any other administrative proceeding, in 
     accordance with the applicable State law.
       ``(g) Waiver of Rights.--A law enforcement officer may 
     waive any of the rights guaranteed by this section subsequent 
     to the time that the officer has been notified that the 
     officer is under investigation. Such a waiver shall be in 
     writing and signed by the officer.
       ``(h) Summary Punishment and Emergency Suspension.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section does not preclude a State 
     from providing for summary punishment or emergency 
     suspension.
       ``(2) Health benefits.--An emergency suspension shall not 
     affect or infringe on the health benefits of a law 
     enforcement officer or any dependent of the officer.
       ``(i) Retaliation for Exercising Rights.--There shall be no 
     penalty or threat of penalty against a law enforcement 
     officer for the exercise of the rights of the officer under 
     this section.
       ``(j) Other Remedies Not Impaired.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to impair any other legal right or remedy 
     that a law enforcement officer may have as a result of a 
     constitution, statute, ordinance, regulation, collective 
     bargaining agreement or other sources of rights.
       ``(k) Declaratory or Injunctive Relief.--A law enforcement 
     officer who is being denied any right afforded by this 
     section may petition a State court for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to prohibit the law enforcement agency from 
     violating such right.
       ``(l) Prohibition of Adverse Material in Officer's File.--A 
     law enforcement agency shall not insert any adverse material 
     into the file of any law enforcement officer, or possess or 
     maintain control over any adverse material in any form within 
     the law enforcement agency, unless the officer has had an 
     opportunity to review and comment in writing on the adverse 
     material.
       ``(m) Disclosure of Personal Assets.--A law enforcement 
     officer shall not be required or requested to disclose any 
     item of the officer's personal property, income, assets, 
     sources of income, debts, or personal or domestic 
     expenditures (including those of any member of the officer's 
     household), unless--
       ``(1) the information is necessary to the investigation of 
     a violation of any Federal, State or local law, rule, or 
     regulation with respect to the performance of official 
     duties; and
       ``(2) such disclosure is required by Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(n) States' Rights.--This section does not preempt State 
     laws in existence on the effective date of this section that 
     confer rights that equal or exceed the rights and coverage 
     afforded by this section. This section shall not be a bar to 
     the enactment of a police officer's bill of rights, or 
     similar legislation, by any State. A State law that confers 
     fewer rights or provides less protection to law enforcement 
     officers than this section shall be preempted by this 
     section.
       ``(o) Mutually Agreed Upon Collective Bargaining 
     Agreements.--This section does not preempt any mutually 
     agreed upon collective bargaining agreement in existence on 
     the effective date of this section that is substantially 
     similar to the rights and coverage afforded under this 
     section.
       ``(p) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with 
     respect to each State on the earlier of--
       ``(1) 2 years after the date of enactment of the Law 
     Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights Act of 1997; or
       ``(2) upon the conclusion of the second legislative session 
     of the State that begins on or after the date of enactment of 
     the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights Act of 1997.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. preceding 3701) is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 819 the following:

``Sec. 820. Rights of law enforcement officers.''.

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, we renew our call for the 
congress to pass the ``law enforcement officers' bill of rights act.'' 
For 6 years, I have been working with Senator McConnell, other 
Senators, and the Nation's police officers to pass into law a bill 
protecting the rights of law enforcement officers on the front line of 
this Nation's fight against violent crime and drug trafficking.
  Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, I want to 
discuss the reality of law enforcement today. The simple fact is that 
as Federal, State, and local officials push to expand ``community'' or 
``problem-solving'' policing we are necessarily requiring police 
officers to move away from standard procedures and towards more 
creative approaches.
  Of course, as we encourage creativity, there is always the need to 
guarantee the highest standards of police conduct.
  Unfortunately, because police department's internal disciplinary 
procedures vary so widely across the Nation, we are literally moving at 
cross-purposes. On the one hand, we are calling on police officers to 
take more creative approaches--which naturally raises the

[[Page S1556]]

chances of technical violations of department procedures.
  While, on the other hand, we subject police officers to varying, 
often ad hoc, disciplinary procedures which do make clear what specific 
conduct is appropriate, nor what will happen should the conduct turn 
out to be a mistake.
  In fact, the practices that many departments use to guide internal 
investigations frequently allow police executives to take arbitrary and 
unfair actions against innocent police officers, while allowing 
culpable officers to avoid any punishment at all.
  The law enforcement officers' bill of rights is designed to replace 
the ad hoc nature of many internal police investigations by encouraging 
States to provide minimum procedural standards to guide such 
investigations. The standards and protections offered by this bill are 
modeled on the standards for law enforcement agencies developed by the 
National Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement.
  As the preface to the commission's standards on internal affairs 
notes:

       ``The internal affairs function is important for the 
     maintenance of professional conduct in a law enforcement 
     agency. The integrity of the agency depends on the personal 
     integrity and discipline of each employee. To a large degree, 
     the pubic image of the agency is determined by the quality of 
     the internal affairs function in responding to allegations of 
     misconduct by the agency or its employees.''

  The specific standards and rights guaranteed by the law enforcement 
officers bill of rights are designed to improve and enhance the quality 
of the internal affairs function, including: The right to be informed 
by a written statement of the charges brought against an officer; The 
right to be free from undue coercion or harassment during an 
investigation; and The right to counsel during an investigation.
  The provisions of this bill will take effect at the end of the second 
full legislative term of each State. After such time, a law enforcement 
officer whose rights have been abridged may sue in state court for 
pecuniary and other damages, including full reinstatement.
  Although the bill provides certain procedural rights, it gives States 
considerable discretion in implementing these safeguards, including the 
flexibility to provide for summary punishment and emergency suspensions 
of law enforcement officers.
  It is also important to note what the bill does not do. The bill 
explicitly provides that the standards and protections governing 
internal investigations shall not apply to investigations of criminal 
misconduct by law enforcement officers. As a result, criminal 
investigations of law enforcement officers would not be affected by 
this bill.
  Moreover, the protections in this bill do not apply to minor 
violations of departmental rules or regulations, nor to actions taken 
on the basis of an officers' employment-related performance.
  I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of several of the 
Nation's leading law enforcement organizations on this important bill. 
The real leaders behind this effort--and they have been the leaders 
since the police officers' bill of rights won passage in the Senate in 
1991--are the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 
and the National Troopers Coalition. No one should be confused about 
where the force behind the law enforcement officers bill of rights 
lies--it lies with these organizations.
 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join as an original sponsor of the 
Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights Act of 1997.
  Our State and local law enforcement officers are the backbone of our 
nation's anticrime, antigang and anti-drug efforts. Together with local 
prosecutors and an energized public, our local law enforcement officers 
are responsible for much of the good news we have had over the last few 
years, as crime rates across the county have declined. The President's 
community policing program, which is assisting local law enforcement to 
add 100,000 additional cops on the beat, is paying off. More police 
officers are patrolling our neighborhoods, towns, cities, and rural 
areas, and it is helping communities across America.
  On the first day of this Congress, I joined in sponsoring S. 15 with 
the minority leader and other Democrats. With that bill, we hope to 
take the next step against crime by redoubling our efforts against 
youth gangs and drugs. State and local officers are essential 
participants in these initiatives.
  When I was privileged to serve as state's attorney for Chittenden 
County, I had the good fortune to work alongside a number of dedicated 
State and local officers. These public servants literally put their 
lives on the line each day to protect all of us. Since coming to the 
Senate, I have tried to do my best to support local law enforcement. 
Their responsibilities require split-second judgment, dedication, 
timing, and guts. We hold the men and women who serve in law 
enforcement to the highest standards because public respect for the law 
is so critical.
  This legislation is an effort to spell out what the Constitution's 
guarantee of due process means to law enforcement officers subjected to 
administrative disciplinary proceedings. It is our hope that these 
standards will serve the public by helping specify fair, prompt 
procedures for determining whether a rule relating to an officer's 
service has been violated. This measure should make unnecessary 
prolonged litigation challenging whether disciplinary procedures were 
sufficient to satisfy officers' constitutional rights to due process. 
These kinds of fair processes should provide the public and law 
enforcement officers with confidence in both the outcome of such 
administrative proceedings as well as the fairness of the procedures 
used to determine questions of possible misconduct.
  When a law enforcement officer engages in wrongdoing, it reflects 
badly on all law enforcement. No one is harder on those few officers 
who go bad than fellow law enforcement officers. This bill will do 
nothing to protect those wrongdoers. Officers under criminal 
investigation or those subject to immediate suspension because there is 
probable cause to believe they committed a felony or pose a threat to 
public safety will find no comfort here. This bill should not affect 
criminal investigations, nor for that matter, civil lawsuits against 
officers.
  The procedural protections provided by this bill attach in 
administrative proceedings. They provide officers with a minimum 
threshold of due process protection by requiring that the officers be 
informed of charges against them, have a right to a fair hearing, be 
allowed representation, be advised of the results of internal 
investigations and be afforded an opportunity to review and comment on 
adverse actions.
  I hope that we can make progress on this bill and look forward to 
working with representatives of State and local government, police 
chiefs, sheriffs, troopers, and other interested parties as we proceed. 
As a cosponsor, I will work to improve this bill. For example, I would 
like to be able to provide greater privacy protection for officers' 
medical records as well as for the financial information already 
included in the bill. At the same time, I remain concerned that 
disciplinary actions be open to the public. When a hearing is 
justifiably closed, its results should nonetheless be made public. I am 
confident that we can work out such details in a consensus, bipartisan 
effort.
  I am convinced that it is worth the effort to reassure those who 
serve us that we respect their rights and reputations. While no one is 
above the law, everyone is entitled to be treated fairly.
                                 ______