[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7717-S7718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1031. A bill to protect Federal law enforcement officers who 
intervene in certain situations to protect life or prevent bodily 
injury; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


    the federal law enforcement officers' good samaritan act of 1997

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers' Good Samaritan Act of 1997. This bill will help 
Federal officers do what they do best: protect lives. Under this bill, 
any Federal law enforcement officer who, while off duty, should 
unexpectedly arrive at or is present at a crime will be able to take 
appropriate action.
  Mr. President, perhaps a hypothetical example would best explain the 
intent of this legislation. Lets say a law enforcement officer stops at 
a convenience store on his way home from work one evening. While 
picking up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread, a criminal attempts to 
rob this particular store. Now most law enforcement folks will tell you 
that, in this situation, they would feel compelled to take some kind of 
appropriate action. But in many jurisdictions, if they do

[[Page S7718]]

take action and are hurt, or are forced to hurt the criminal, they may 
not be eligible for their health benefits, and may be open to be sued 
by the criminal for their actions. The law enforcement officer, acting 
on his training, and intervening in a situation that he had the 
training and ability to deal with, would have to cover these expenses 
from his own pocket. Mr. President, this does not sound fair to me. It 
can create a situation where the officer may feel unable to act in 
response to his sense of duty because of concerns that he will be 
penalized for acting. This legislation would eliminate these legitimate 
worries.
  Let me make it clear that this bill does not expand Federal law 
enforcement authority. A Federal officer could only make a citizen's 
arrest, if necessary, and local law enforcement officials would still 
have jurisdiction in the case. My office has spoken with the National 
Association of Attorneys General, and they are supportive of this 
legislation.
  I hope that my colleagues will take the time to look at this 
legislation, and join Senator Alfonse D'Amato and me in sponsoring this 
bill. Our Government has invested a lot of time, energy, and trust in 
the training and support of our Federal law enforcement officers. We 
need to be sure that they are able to perform their duties--and to act 
as we would hope and expect them to act.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator 
Grassley in the introduction of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' 
Good Samaritan Act. This bill is essential to protect trained federal 
law enforcement officers who want to offer assistance when they witness 
a crime but are afraid of the repercussions afterwards if it is not a 
crime defined under their agency's authorizing statute.
  Agents in the federal law enforcement community are charged with the 
investigation of criminal activities defined in their authorizing 
statute. For example, DEA agents investigate drug crimes and a Secret 
Service agent's role is limited to financial crimes. If acting ``within 
the scope of their employment'', meaning they deal with only those 
crimes listed in their agency's authorizing statute, the actions of the 
Special Agent will not result in personal liability. In addition, the 
employing agency may assign counsel or provide worker's compensation if 
the Special Agent was injured in the line of duty.
  However, when an off-duty Federal Agent witnesses the commission of a 
violent crime, such as a DEA agent witnessing a robbery, the 
intervention is deemed to be outside the scope of his or her 
employment. Unfortunately, that special agent's intervention may 
subject the off-duty Federal Law Enforcement Agent to personal 
liability--without the protections afforded them if they were on duty.
  There are few cases nation-wide but it has affected the intervention 
of our Federal Law Enforcement Officers. In one instance, two DEA 
agents on a surveillance saw a parked car occupied by a man and a young 
woman. The car was not part of the surveillance. This did not stop the 
agents from intervening when they saw the young woman struggling with 
the man and screaming for help. Their assistance was not ``within the 
scope of their employment'' but these trained agents wanted to help, 
using their expertise in crisis situations. The DEA agents certainly 
were not thinking a lawsuit when they intervened but because their 
actions were outside the scope, they were acting as private citizens--
subjecting their personal assets to a lawsuit.
  Federal agents who unexpectedly encounter violence in our communities 
face an unconscionable choice: 1.) stand by and allow the violence to 
occur; 2.) refuse help to the victim and allow the perpetrator to 
escape; or 3.) intervene as a private citizen and risk bankruptcy by a 
potential lawsuit.
  Currently, there exists no federal statute authorizing Federal 
Special Agents to intervene during the commission of certain violent 
crimes outside the scope of their statutory authority, and protecting 
their personal assets when they assist someone in need. I urge my 
colleagues to review the merits of this bill and join in this effort to 
relieve the fear of our specially trained law enforcement agent and 
possibly encouraging their intervention when citizens need it the most.
  This bill explicitly defines when a specially trained agent may be 
protected if he or she offers assistance ``outside the scope of their 
employment''. These instances are limited to:
  (A) the protection of any person in his presence from the imminent 
infliction of bodily harm;
  (B) offering immediate help to any victim who suffers bodily harm in 
his presence; and
  (C) preventing the escape of any person he reasonably believes to be 
responsible for inflicting, attempting or threatening to inflict, 
bodily harm to another in his presence.
  It will provide the Agent with the same qualified immunity that he 
has if the act was within the ``scope of his employment'': counsel will 
be provided to the agent, the Federal Government will indemnify for the 
damages caused, worker's compensation will be available.
  This bill will not curtail the rights of an injured party. It does 
not prevent an injured party from suing for damages incurred during the 
intervention by the Agent nor will it restrict the amount of damages 
that an injured party may receive if the court finds that the Agent 
acted unreasonably.
  This bill will not expand the powers or authorities of Federal law 
enforcement agencies or give Federal law enforcement agents authority 
to investigate or to direct any state or local law enforcement body, 
usurping the powers of the state or local law enforcement agencies, 
outside of their jurisdiction. Finally, this bill will not restrict the 
filing of criminal charges if the action of the Agent fits the current 
statutory definition.
  Federal law enforcement agents need this protection and I urge its 
passage.
                                 ______