Judiciary committee hears hours of testimony on HB202, a bill to create pretrial immunity review for officers

The Alabama House Judiciary Committee on Thursday heard more than three hours of public testimony on House Bill 202, a substitute measure that would revise the state's use-of-force law for law enforcement and create a pretrial immunity hearing for officers accused of criminal conduct.

Representative Reynolds, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure “would provide for law enforcement officer is justified in and immune from criminal prosecution for use of force against a person and in the performance of conduct within his or her discretionary authority unless the use of force violates the person's constitutional right to be free from that excessive force.” He said the substitute updates Alabama Code 13-3-27 “to make it consistent with the federal constitutional standards and set a rule.”

Supporters — including the Alabama Sheriff's Association and several rank-and-file law enforcement representatives in the hearing room — said the substitute will give clarity to officers and speed resolution of cases. Shubhie Hossmack, executive director of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, told the panel, “What this legislation really does is it clarifies a lot of existing law, and it brings the clarity. But I also submit to you that it actually expedites the process of justice by adding the additional hearing that can be a probable cause type hearing.” Hossmack said a protracted civil case had left a deputy in litigation for nine years and that the substitute would reduce uncertainty for officers and agencies.

Opponents and public commentators warned the committee the bill would erect new barriers to accountability. Travis Jackson, who identified himself as a House District 88 resident and Iraq War veteran, said, “I oppose house bill 202, which in my opinion is a modern day racial terror law proposal disregarding first and fourth amendment rights.” An NAACP speaker described repeated complaints to the organization about officers who, she said, “receive little to no punishment when they commit a crime because they are hiding behind the badge.”

Committee members pressed the bill’s authors and counsel on multiple technical and substantive points, especially the civil provisions. Committee questions focused on who qualifies as a covered “law enforcement officer,” how the bill’s “would have known” or “clearly established” standard would be applied in civil claims, what discovery a plaintiff could obtain before the civil immunity determination, and whether the pretrial immunity hearing would preclude later criminal or civil proceedings. Will Parker, who responded for the group drafting the civil side of the substitute, said stakeholders had negotiated the pleading standard and automatic stay and that “the idea is that just like in federal court ... you've got to basically be able to put forward facts that, if taken as true, establish your claim for relief.” Parker said some discovery limitations were intended to allow early resolution but acknowledged stakeholders were still negotiating details.

Representative Reynolds and committee counsel also tied the criminal portion of the bill to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, saying it follows the constitutional tests announced in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor. One counsel told members, “If what is constitutional cannot be criminal, what is not constitutional can absolutely be criminal.”

Several committee members expressed concern that the substitute could raise practical and constitutional questions. One member warned the interplay of a civil pleading standard, an automatic stay, and an early immunity hearing could make it more difficult for private plaintiffs to obtain discovery needed to plead claims with the specificity the substitute requires. Another member questioned whether the new hearing structure could result in multiple chances for an officer to assert defensive doctrines in criminal proceedings and whether that would affect jury determinations at trial.

The committee adopted the offered substitute on a voice vote at the start of the hearing. Judge Hill, the presiding chair, then kept the record open for public comment and limited speakers to three minutes each. After hearing multiple witnesses on both sides, the committee closed the public hearing and carried HB202 over until next week for continued consideration and potential amendments.

The committee did not vote on final passage of HB202; members said they anticipated further amendments and additional work with stakeholders before a floor vote.

The hearing transcript records extensive back-and-forth between committee members and counsel on civil procedure mechanics, the scope of covered officers, interaction with federal 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims, and appeal routes if immunity is denied or granted. The committee carried the bill over for further drafting and debate at a subsequent meeting.