Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee adopts amendment to HB 4138A on officer identifiability and advances the bill to the floor

Senate committee on rollers · February 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senators adopted the dash A11 amendment to HB 4138A, which would require law‑enforcement agencies to adopt identifiability policies restricting some facial coverings and creating an attestation process for cooperation; the committee voted to move the amended bill to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

The committee held a work session on House Bill 4138A and voted to adopt the dash A11 amendment before advancing the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

Legislative staff said HB 4138A would require law‑enforcement agencies operating in Oregon — whether federal, out‑of‑state or local — to maintain policies that generally restrict facial coverings by on‑duty officers except in specified circumstances, create a challenge mechanism for such policies and provide a process (including a sworn attestation) for a state entity to cooperate with an out‑of‑state or federal agency when necessary. The measure declares an emergency and passed the House 36–9, staff noted. The posted dash A11 amendment clarifies exceptions and the attestation process.

A committee member moved adoption of the A11 amendment on behalf of law‑enforcement stakeholders and the amendment passed on a roll call; the committee then moved HB 4138A, as amended, to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation after discussion that emphasized law‑enforcement support and national events motivating the policy.

Senator Manning and Senator Golden recorded support during discussion; one senator was excused. Supporters framed the bill as a balance between protecting lawful protest and ensuring officer accountability; some members said the bill was a response to recent national events affecting the balance of protest rights and law‑enforcement operations.

The committee’s actions in session advanced the measure to the next stage of consideration in the Legislature; no floor action occurred during this meeting.