Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
'Protect Your Door' bill would let Oregonians sue federal or out‑of‑state officers for unlawful home entries
Summary
House Bill 4,114 would create a civil cause of action allowing individuals to sue individual federal or out‑of‑state law‑enforcement agents who enter private property without a judicial warrant, consent, or emergency; sponsors and civil‑liberties advocates argued the bill withstands supremacy‑clause challenges, while law‑enforcement partners urged careful drafting of amendments.
Representative Leslie Munoz and chief sponsor Senator Khan Pham presented House Bill 4,114, dubbed the Protect Your Door Act, as a measure to restore state‑level accountability when federal or out‑of‑state officers enter private property without a judicial warrant, consent, or a legitimate emergency. Munoz framed the bill as restoring remedies when federal remedies are inadequate and cited Supreme Court precedent and statutory law in support of the state’s authority to provide relief.
Senator Pham said the bill would "create an avenue for all Oregonians whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated" to sue individual agents for minimum damages, costs and attorney fees. Legal experts who testified — including Steve Walters of the Oregon Law Center and other constitutional lawyers — told the committee they were confident the bill could withstand Supremacy Clause litigation and that it addresses harms not remedied by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Numerous civic, labor, education and immigrant‑advocacy groups testified in favor, sharing constituent accounts of alleged warrantless or coercive entries by immigration enforcement and concerns that current federal remedies leave victims without practical recourse. "For the families I represent... when the government crosses that threshold unlawfully... the harm is real, it's traumatic," Representative Munoz said in opening testimony.
Law‑enforcement groups and some sheriffs urged caution. The Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police and the Oregon State Sheriffs Association said original drafts could unintentionally hamper cooperative task forces, interagency intelligence sharing and investigations into crimes such as child exploitation and trafficking. They said they needed time to review dash‑1 amendments and raised concerns about advanced notification or overly broad limits on cooperation.
The committee heard requests on both sides for technical clarifications. The public hearing was closed with no committee vote recorded; sponsors and stakeholders indicated ongoing negotiations on amendments and implementation details.
