House amends assault‑on‑officer bill to specify 'uniformed' officers and circles measure

Substitute House Bill 105 was presented as a measure to increase penalties for assaulting peace officers when actual bodily injury occurs, and to extend penalties to conservation officers. Sponsors argued that harsher penalties would deter attacks on officers conducting arrests and law enforcement activities. Representative Harwood asked for clarification on the statutory meaning of "actual bodily injury," prompting sponsors to point to existing criminal code definitions.

Members raised concerns about scope and fairness. Representative James moved amendments to insert the word "uniformed" before references to police and conservation officers so that the statute would read "uniformed police officer" or "uniformed conservation officer," arguing that the word helps the accused know when a felony applies. "I believe that the individual being charged... the word uniform identifies much quicker than any method that an individual... could have," he said during his summation on the floor. Other members warned against creating special classes with additional protections without careful consideration; one member cautioned, "There is no reason to make super citizens out of police officers."

After adoption of the uniformed‑officer amendments and additional floor debate, the House circled the bill for further consideration rather than immediately passing it; sponsors plan to refine language and address definitional issues before final action.