A Deep-Dive into Federal Bills Aimed at Protecting Our Cops
A Deep-Dive into Federal Bills Aimed at Protecting Our Cops
It's time to send a resounding message that Enough is Enough!
FYI: This is a loooong read. For those of you who don’t want to plow through the verbiage (it can admittedly be dry; sorry, can’t be helped), I’m working on a handy table for a future post. : )
Federal legislators have introduced a slew of bills designed to address the increase in violence on police officers. Though the common thread of these bills is that they increase penalties for harming an officer, they differ in their application. Moreover, not all have an equal chance of getting passed.
To help cut through the confusion, I created a guide that outlines the most important of these bills introduced in the 118th Congress. Feel free to use it as a resource for when you speak to your representative or are debating the merits of passing legislation to protect our cops.
Please keep in mind that I’m not a lawyer, cop, or legal scholar; the following is based on my interpretation of the bills. Although I performed due diligence with research, I encourage you to let me know if something is amiss.
Key Terms Used in this Report
Aggravating Factors
These are circumstances that justify raising the crime’s severity, and thus the level of punishment. Examples of aggravating factors may include whether the defendant is a repeat offender, intended to commit the crime, or is remorseful.
Ambush-Style Attacks (or Ambushes)
Ambush-style attacks are unprovoked acts that occur without warning or an opportunity for officers to defend themselves. The International Association of Chiefs of Police breaks down ambush-style attacks into two categories: premeditated; and spontaneous, where an offender uses an opportunity to attack an officer in the moment.
The FBI has documented an increase in ambushes of police officers since at least 2015, and these attacks continue to rise. As of this date, they’ve increased by about 10% when compared to the same period last year.
For detailed statistics, I encourage you to check out the FOP’s Officers Shot & Killed monthly reports.
Judiciary Committee
Both the House and Senate have their own Committee of the Judiciary. This is the committee where law enforcement bills go after being introduced.
For simplicity, I’ll be referring to the Committee of the Judiciary as Judiciary Committee.
With that, let’s take a look at the bills that have been introduced (and re-introduced) in the 118th Congress.
Federal Law Enforcement Bills Introduced in the 118th Congress
Defending Our Defenders Act (S. 868 / H.R. 1627)
It’s also referred to as the Sergeant Steve Owen Defending Our Defenders Act, in honor of a Los Angeles County sheriff’s sergeant who was murdered while responding to a burglary call in 2016.
What the bill would do
A defendant found guilty of the murder of a federal, state, or local police officer would receive life in prison or the death penalty. The bill stipulates that the jury consider aggravating factors when deciding on the death penalty. Aggravating factors include whether the defendant intended to murder the officer, has a history of threatening police officers, or is affiliated with anarchist groups.
Where the bill stands
It was introduced in both chambers in March; in the U.S. House by Representative Mike Garcia and in the Senate by Senator Tom Cotton. It’s currently in each chamber’s Judiciary Committee, with 19 co-sponsors (18 R; 1 D) in the House and none in the Senate.
The bill’s previous history
The Defending Our Defenders Act was previously introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses.
Key bill supporters
National Association of Police Organizations
Heritage Action (a project of the Heritage Foundation)
Major County Sheriffs of America
The bill is also supported by a number of California-based law enforcement organizations. Note that Sergeant Steve Owen was a Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy.
Los Angeles Police Protective League
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Thoughts on Defending Our Defenders Act
Since being introduced in March, the bill has yet to attract a substantial number of co-sponsors. And with the exception of one lone Democrat, it has no bipartisan support. One factor for the hesitance may be the death penalty component.
As Ryan Windorff, president of the Wisconsin FOP told me,
“The death penalty is a very divisive topic, even for the most aggravating crimes. For that reason it will be more likely to not garner the bipartisan support it would need to get passed.”
Thin Blue Line Act (H.R. 130 / S. 459)
What the bill would do
Under current law, the murder or attempted murder of a federal law enforcement officer is an aggravating factor that favors maximum sentencing, including the death penalty. The Thin Blue Line Act would extend these protections to state and local officers.
As Ryan explained to me,
The “Thin Blue Line Act would expand the list of aggravating factors in federal death penalty determinations to add killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.”
Where the bill stands
It was introduced in the House in January by Representative Vern Buchanan where it has 48 co-sponsors (all R); and in the Senate by Senator Mike Braun in February where it has 12 co-sponsors (all R). It’s currently in the Judiciary Committee of both chambers.
The bill’s previous history
The Thin Blue Line Act was previously introduced in the 114th, 115, 116th, and 117th Congresses.
Key bill supporters
National Fraternal Order of Police
National Troopers Coalition
National Association of Police Organizations
National Council of Prison Locals
Voices of JOE (nonprofit voice for fallen corrections officers)
America First Policy Institute (non-profit research institute)
Thoughts on Thin Blue Line Act
This bill has a decent amount of support from law enforcement organizations. Given that it has zero bipartisan support and includes a death penalty component, it’s difficult to see how it will progress. Though FOP supports this bill, it’s not a current priority for them.
Back the Blue Act of 2023 (H.R. 355 / S. 1569)
What the bill would do
It increases penalties for killing or attempting to kill a state or local police officer. Under current law, the capital offense component applies only in cases where an officer was in some way involved in a federal investigation. This law would close that loophole.
It would mandate at least 10 years in prison. If the officer passes away, the sentence would increase to a minimum of 30 years or result in the death penalty.
Where the bill stands
It was introduced in the House in January by Representative Don Bacon where it has 18 co-sponsors (all R); and in the Senate in May where it has 41 co-sponsors (all R). It’s in the Judiciary Committee in both chambers.
Bill’s previous history
The Back the Blue Act was previously introduced in the 114th, 115th, 116th, and 117th Congresses.
Key bill supporters
Fraternal Order of Police
National Association of Police Organizations
NYPD Sergeant’s Benevolent Association
Thoughts on Back the Blue Act
The bill lacks bipartisan support and is slow to gain any co-sponsors. Coupled with the controversial death penalty factor, this bill is unlikely to get far. Although FOP supports it, it’s not currently a priority.
The Protect & Serve Act of 2023 (H.R. 743)
What the bill would do
The Protect & Serve Act creates a new crime for knowingly assaulting a policing officer that results in seriously bodily harm. Protection would be extended to state and local officers, as well as federal officers.
As Ryan explains,
“This would apply to offenses with a federal nexus and apply some mandatory minimum sentences (which the feds are known for) . . . it’s designed to send a message that we, as a society, will not tolerate attacks or killing of our law enforcement officers.”
The penalty includes a sentence of up to 10 years in prison; and life in prison for killing or kidnapping an officer.
Where the bill stands
It was introduced in the House in February by Representative John Rutherford and currently has 82 co-sponsors (71 R, 11 D). It has not yet been introduced in the Senate.
Bill’s previous history
The Protect & Serve Act of 2023 was previously introduced in the 115, 116, and 117 Congresses.
Key bill supporters
National Fraternal Order of Police
National Police Association
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
National Association of Police Organizations
Major County Sheriffs of America
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Sergeants Benevolent Association
Thoughts on Protect & Serve Act
This bill has the strongest bi-partisan support of all these bills and is gaining the most momentum. For comparison, Defending Our Defenders has just 18 co-sponsors to Protect & Serve’s 81; both were introduced in March.
“It is the FOP’s opinion that Protect and Serve has the most realistic chances of being passed as it provides federal prosecutors jurisdiction over these offenses and imposes mandatory minimum sentences rather than the death penalty,” Ryan told me.
Of the 10,000 or so bills introduced in Congress this session, an estimated 6% will actually pass. If we want a bill that manages to avoid the slush pile and pass in this climate of political division, it needs to have broad appeal for both parties. What the bill asks -especially stipulating up to 10 years for assaulting an officer- is reasonable, at least by most people’s standards.
Key Arguments for Police Legislation
Aren’t There Already Laws That Penalize Harming an Officer?
While most states in the union have laws that penalize crimes against police officers, they vary in verbiage and application.
Florida, for example, passed the Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act in 2021, which is targeted in its messaging. One component is that it mandates sentencing for intentionally harming an officer.
California, in contrast, has a general assault statute that includes enhanced penalties for harming a police officer.
Even if a state law exists, that doesn’t mean it’s being applied properly. In fact, depending on the political persuasion of a district attorneys (there should be no political influence in our criminal justice system, yet here we are) the application of justice when it comes to police officers can be quite arbitrary. A light sentence for assaulting an officer is not justice. It’s why I advocate for mandated sentences at the state level.
We also need stronger laws at the federal level that extend to state and local police officers. Here are laws I found at the federal level:
18 U.S. Code § 1121 - Killing persons aiding Federal investigations or State correctional officers. This would result in life imprisonment or the death penalty. It only applies to local and state police officers who are in some way involved in federal investigation.
18 U.S. Code § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. Noncompliance results in a fine and / or a sentence of up to 20 years. It only applies to federal police officers, however.
What About States’ Rights?
Opponents argue that federal mandates would usurp the authority of local district attorneys. While I’m not a Constitutional scholar (and please feel free to chime in here), my argument would be that the federal government has an obligation to protect all its citizens and uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Allowing defendants to receive little-to-no-consequences for assaulting police officers is a dereliction of duty that places officers -and by extension the public- in harm’s way.
Also consider this: the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (which I’m grateful for) prohibits anyone from removing eggs, nests, or feathers of these raptors, regardless of the state they’re located. Why then, can’t police officers (who are official representatives of our Constitution) also receive protection, regardless of which state they serve in?
Those who argue against federalizing laws to protect police officers also scoff at applying a universal approach to local problems. How ironic that many of these same people actively lobby for federal police reform; in this case, applying universal standards can very well interfere with a local police department’s customized best practices. In contrast, save for any potential aggravating factors, there’s little gray area when it comes to intentional assaults on cops.
Do Deterrents Work?
Opponents argue that federal bills wouldn’t deter individuals from assaulting police or be effective in reducing crime; and that it would instead hinder police-community relations.
To this, I ask you: Is the current system working?
Because right now, depending on the jurisdiction, there are few-to-no deterrents for assaulting an officer or committing a crime. Criminal offenders know this and take advantage. Look at what the result has been: an increase in ambushes of police officers and unchecked crime that’s claiming innocent lives and upending cities. We need a better solution.
Finetuning the Protect & Serve Act
My one concern with H.R. 743 is that some of the verbiage and definitions may be too broadly written.
For example,
(a) In General.—Whoever, in any circumstance described in subsection (b), knowingly assaults a law enforcement officer causing serious bodily injury, or attempts to do so—is for the potential of abuse of power.
What specifically constitutes serious bodily injury and who determines it?
There are indeed logistics and specifics that need to be clarified in the bill. And a safety valve needs to be placed to protect against potential abuses. This should be addressed during Committee.
The Protect & Serve Act is by no means a panacea or a perfect solution. Our current scenario however, is not working. It’s a landscape that places police officers and civilians at greater risk. The government has an obligation to maintain order. What we have now is chaos. This piece of legislation sends a resounding message that assaulting a police officer will not be tolerated. It’s an important step on the path to restoring law and order.
If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Best, as always. : )
For the Blue is a solutions-based initiative. I’m just an American patriot asking questions. I don’t work with any political party and I answer to nobody. For me, the health of the nation, due process (including for police officers), the rule of law, and respect for individual liberties, will always transcend party affiliation. I welcome your thoughts, even if you disagree; though personal attacks will be ignored. You can reach me at fortheblue@substack.com.