Missouri committee hears competing views on 'Firefighter Bill of Rights' (HB1733); immunity, volunteers and EMS exceptions draw concern

The House Committee on Local Government held a public hearing on House Bill 1733, a proposed "firefighter bill of rights" that would establish statutory procedural protections for firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and dispatchers employed by public agencies.

Representative Colin Wallenkamp, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure seeks to set a statewide baseline where protections are currently a "patchwork." He said the bill covers procedural safeguards for disciplinary interviews and investigations — including notice of interrogation scope, access to counsel or representative, reasonable breaks, limits on polygraph testing, notice or warrant requirements for locker searches, timelines for investigations, notice when items are added to personnel files, and a legal defense for covered actions in the line of duty. He said those protections will support recruitment and retention and are narrower than popular portrayals, emphasizing the bill does not authorize campaigning in uniform.

Supporters included Garrett Ryan of the International Association of Fire Fighters and Corey Hogan of the Missouri State Council of Firefighters. Ryan described the bill as "about fairness and professionalism," and urged members to support a transparent, consistent process for investigations. Hogan and other union witnesses reiterated that Garrity-like protections exist to prevent compelled statements in employer investigations from being used in criminal proceedings, and said the bill is meant to provide guardrails rather than blanket immunity.

Opponents — including Steve Carroll (representing Melville Fire Protection District), Tom Dempsey (Missouri Association of Career Fire Protection Districts recorded in support), Morgan Schlaen (Missouri Association of Fire Protection Districts and the Missouri College of Emergency Physicians), Brent Hemphill (Missouri Ambulance Association), David Klarich (Robertson Fire Protection District) and Matthew Brodersen (MRMA) — raised common objections. They argued many protections can or should be set by collective bargaining or existing employer policies, warned that statutory mandates would reduce local control and could increase costly litigation, and flagged operational conflicts. Emergency physicians and ambulance representatives warned that the bill’s interrogation and notice rules could delay immediate clinical debriefings or 'hot washes' that are important to patient care.

Several committee members repeatedly pressed two central technical issues: whether the bill’s references to protection from use of statements in criminal proceedings amount to a grant of immunity beyond Garrity case law, and whether volunteers and small rural fire districts that do not have collective bargaining coverage are clearly included. Witnesses from unions and the sponsor said Garrity protections are not equivalent to a prosecutor-granted immunity and that volunteers serving under public entities should generally be covered, but the committee asked for legal clarification on those points.

Representative Walsh Moore and others suggested possible carve-outs (for example, allowing firefighters to run for school boards but not for certain fire-district boards where conflicts may exist), and multiple members urged staff to help refine ambiguous language. With legal questions outstanding, the committee closed the public hearing and sought further information before taking formal action on HB1733.

The committee had earlier in the meeting recorded a unanimous roll-call vote reporting House Bill 2096 do pass.

Next steps were not set on the record; the committee requested legal clarification on the immunity language and additional drafting to address volunteer inclusion and EMS/clinical exceptions.