Judiciary committee advances bill to shift police training standards to rulemaking despite opposition
Loading...
Summary
The committee advanced SB50, which moves some statutory in‑service training requirements into rulemaking and gives the Standards and Training Council flexibility; proponents said it allows modernized training while opponents warned it could remove enforceable refresher standards in high‑risk areas.
Senate Bill 50, a measure to restructure how in‑service law‑enforcement training is prescribed, received a do‑pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee after extended debate over whether statutory refresher requirements should remain in law or be delegated to rulemaking.
Sponsor testimony framed SB50 as a modernization: the Standards and Training Council and related agencies would gain flexibility to deliver contemporary curricula, respond quickly to technological or legal changes and expand training beyond the current minimal statutory lists. The sponsor noted that much of the existing statutory language is historic and that implementation has been uneven across jurisdictions.
Supporters included training professionals and officials who said the current minimums (40 hours every two years) and statutory annual refresher requirements have become a ceiling rather than a floor in some places. "This bill does not eliminate training," said Jennifer Gorham of the Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority, noting the bill would let local satellite academies offer relevant refresher courses.
Opponents, including Captain Eric Threlkelden (identified as with the Eddy County Sheriff's Office), said the bill would remove legally enforceable refresher training in high‑risk subjects—domestic violence, strangulation, crisis intervention and de‑escalation—and could shift liability to local governments. "The practical effect of the bill is that the one time exposure at the academy now legally sufficed for an officer's entire career," he told the committee.
Committee members split on the measure: some expressed confidence that rulemaking could expand and improve training, while others said poor implementation—watching the same videos for years—should not be solved by removing statutory minimums. A substitute motion to table the bill failed on roll call, and the committee subsequently recorded a do‑pass recommendation.
The chair asked staff to rest and scheduled the committee to reconvene the next day; the bill will proceed to the Senate floor for further action. Several senators said they expected to use the intervening time before implementation (the sponsor indicated parts of the bill would not take effect until 2028) to pursue clarifying amendments.
