Committee hears divided testimony on bill clarifying officer immunity in use-of-force cases

HB 202, a proposed change to Alabama Code section 13-3-27, received a public hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee but will not be voted on this week. Representative Reynolds introduced the bill and supporters and opponents spoke during the committee’s public-hearing period.

The bill’s sponsor said the draft modernizes a statute last amended in 1979 and aligns state law with United States Supreme Court precedent. Tim Barfoot, testifying in support, said, “Law enforcement officers who use force constitutionally while carrying out their duties are immune from prosecution,” and that unconstitutional uses of force would remain prosecutable. Barfoot described a pretrial hearing mechanism in the bill and an amendment to require that a judge rule on an officer’s immunity within 45 days in some cases.

The bill drew several opponents during the public comment period. Jita Smith, a longtime reporter, said she opposed HB 202 and argued the measure was modeled on language distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council. “Please take a step back,” she said, urging committee members to consider possible long-term consequences. Travis Jackson, identifying himself as an Iraq War veteran and racial-justice advocate, asked whether the bill would leave victims without avenues for compensation and said HB 202 “is the fatal opposite of” protections for several vulnerable groups. Jerome Deese, arguing from a civil-rights and legal perspective, said the bill’s expanded definition of an officer’s “discretionary authority” was “particularly concerning.”

Hoss Mack, representing the Alabama Sheriffs Association, testified in favor, saying the bill “does not give blanket immunity to law enforcement” and that it would align statutory language with current federal law and police academy training. Mack said the measure would not bar civil suits or appellate review and that it removes outdated “fleeing felon” language from the code.

Committee members probed how the bill would affect cases involving people with mental illness, whether the pretrial hearing would delay accountability and how discretionary authority would be interpreted. Senator Smitherman warned the bill could have disparate effects on Black Alabamians, saying “it’s a green light for black folks to get killed.” Representative Reynolds and supporters said the bill provides a pause for judicial review, not a blanket shield.

No committee vote was taken on HB 202 at this meeting; the chair said the public hearing is concluded and that the committee may consider voting next week.

Ending: The committee’s record will include the testimony and the sponsor’s 45-day hearing amendment; senators asked staff and counsel to continue work on the language before further action.