Stage set to renew the fight over Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights. What to know.
PROVIDENCE – Competing versions of a new Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights are now in play at the Rhode Island State House, with the Senate moving ahead with one version and the House another.
On Tuesday, the same day a Senate committee was poised for a hearing and vote on virtually the same bill the Senate approved last year, key players in the House introduced their own proposed rewrite of the oft-criticized law that governs what happens when police officers are accused of misconduct.
Among the key differences: who would sit on the expanded hearing panels that would weigh each case, the length of time a police chief could suspend an officer without pay without holding a LEBOR hearing, the extent to which a chief could publicly comment on an evolving case and chiefs' latitude in releasing videos.
Bill of rights reform once again a hot issue
The expansion of the so-called LEOBOR hearing panels was part of a compromise embraced last year by the lead lobbyists for both the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association in the wake of a series of local controversies and national scandals over alleged police misconduct.
Other key features of the elusive compromise: an increase in the number of days a police chief can suspend an officer without pay without triggering a potentially lengthy and contentious hearing. The Senate passed a version last year, but it was so close to the end of the 2023 session that House leaders said it arrived too late.
Where they differ
As a starting point for this year's debate, both the House and Senate versions seek to add outsiders – but not the same outsiders – to the hearing panels now dominated by police officers judging the conduct of other police officers.
As was true last year, the Senate wants a retired judge, three active or retired members of law enforcement selected at random by the director of the Department of Public Safety, and the executive director of the Nonviolence Institute.
More: Ex-RI state cop sues, saying he was wrongly fired amid mental-health crisis. What to know.
The House version introduced by Rep. Raymond Hull, a Providence police officer, also calls for the appointment of a retired judge, but the three members of law enforcement would chosen by the Police Officers Commission on Standards and Training from a certified pool, and the fifth member of the panel would be a lawyer appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court "in consultation with the court’s Committee on Racial and Ethnic Fairness and the Bar Association’s’ Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion."
And these are not the only differences.
While the Senate would allow suspensions without pay for up to 14 days instead of the current two-day limit, the House version would create two categories.
It would allow suspensions of up to five days for relatively minor infractions of department rules, and suspensions of 14 days for more serious complaints, such as use of excessive force, felonious conduct, dishonesty in the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, including one involving another officer where there is no criminal investigation underway.
On this, the House and Senate versions agree: A police chief would not be prohibited "from making a public statement or releasing video evidence about ... [a] matter of public interest involving any law enforcement officer."
But the House version would still prohibit a chief from "releasing any video evidence or making a public statement" about an instance so minor it gave rise to a suspension of only five days.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: LEOBOR reform will again be a hot topic this legislative session
