Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would adjust administrative charging timelines for police misconduct to avoid conflicts with criminal trials
Summary
Senate Bill 533 aims to clarify when the one-year-and-one-day administrative deadline for adjudicating officer misconduct runs where a parallel criminal case is pending; proponents said the change prevents prosecutors from losing the ability to discipline officers when criminal proceedings are prolonged.
Senate Bill 533 would amend the timeline for filing and adjudicating administrative charges against law enforcement officers in cases where criminal charges arise, addressing a perceived conflict between criminal proceedings and internal administrative deadlines.
Senator William Follett told the House Judiciary Committee the bill is a “cleanup” to the public safety police accountability statute enacted in 2021: when a law enforcement officer faces criminal charges, the administrative review timeline (commonly described as “a year and a day”) can be delayed until the criminal process reaches disposition so the administrative process does not compromise the criminal prosecution. Follett said the bill would make clear that the one-year-and-one-day rule begins after the criminal adjudication or a charging authority’s declination, while for incidents without criminal conduct the one-year-and-one-day rule still applies from filing.
Delegates and other members pressed for clarification about particular scenarios: multiple-officer incidents where some officers are criminally charged and others are not, how time would begin to run for uncharged officers, and how administrative rules for witness communication and trial-sealing would continue to apply. Follett said the bill does not change investigative or evidentiary protections but clarifies when the administrative clock starts to run so agencies and the Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) are not prevented from completing discipline due to prolonged criminal matters.
Members discussed reinstating specific language (a filing-by-citizen trigger) that appeared in the House version; senators and delegates agreed to reconcile drafting differences and produce an amendment. Testimony concluded with staff and sponsors agreeing to confer on the precise language to preserve citizens’ filing triggers and avoid unintended gaps.
