The following raft of anti-police bills have been proposed.
H.R.7120 - Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
H.R.7144 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the reckless use of excessive force under the color of law, and for other purposes.
H.R.7085 - To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.
In the wake of nationwide protests and the steady stream of hatred directed at police by politicians, celebrities and the media that are destroying the morale of law enforcement, diminish their rights, safety and standing in the community and expose them to increased risk, both on and off the job.
I ask you: when the 1+ million brave men and women of law enforcement are an object of universal hatred, when their rights are stripped away and their safety and their families’ safety are unnecessarily put at risk, who will continue to enforcing our laws – the laws that you, the Legislature, pass – and selflessly putting themselves in harms’ way to keep us safe and protect our rights and freedoms with pride?
People who have little or no Law Enforcement or Legal experience have weaponized the First Amendment to verbal assault and taunt Law Enforcement. They try to unfairly bait and entrap Law Enforcement into mistakenly committing misconduct. These agitators have gotten a number of public officials unfairly and unjustly punished, fired and/or imprisoned due to witch hunts and scapegoating caused when legal reasonable actions by Law Enforcement were illegally exposed to the public and the situation becomes political.
Your support of the following bills show that you believe that no Constitutional Amendment is absolute and are willing to put limits on Constitutional Rights for the greater good.
H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,
H.R .112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
H.R. 1296 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
H.R. 1236 Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019
H.R. 1186 Keep Americans Safe Act
H.R. 2708 Disarm Hate Act
Given your past as a Federal Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh, your unwavering commitment to and advocacy for the Rule of Law and with your full support of Law Enforcement that place their lives at risk to protect our neighborhoods and deserve our respect, admiration, and support, I am writing to inquire if you would be interested in sponsoring the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that includes the following:
1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights” violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their violence and protection from harm above all others.
Sealing of all law enforcement records from the public unless the release has the approval of all police officers involved. Unauthorized release of law enforcement records would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police are entitled to absolute privacy when performing their duties. Police should only be required to identify themselves only in the arrest warrant or report if used in court.
Police officers can seize and delete any video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public as it violates their privacy, distracts from their duties and jeopardizes Officer safety. This right to privacy is absolute when Police are engaged in Routine Non-Enforcement Activity. The act of recording police starts from the belief that every officer is doing something wrong and that's insulting to all police officers. An Automatic search warrant and SWAT raid is authorized for anyone in possession of video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public. The Anti-Police court decisions of Glik v. Cunniffe, Smith v. City of Cumming, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymecki v. Houck, Turner v. Driver and Fields v. City of Philadelphia need to be reversed by this new law.
Police officer statements override any video or audio evidence as the officers' reasonable perceptions are more accurate. Video or audio footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances. This is the case especially when the video or audio is gathered by illegally wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
Citizens must provide ID and must allow themselves to be searched by Law Enforcement when so ordered by Police.
Repeal Anti Police excessive force, false arrest and civil rights violations laws such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights that jeopardize Officer safety. Laws affirming Qualified immunity should be passed.
Reporting and Statistics about Police misconduct, shootings, and use of SWAT should be illegal to be collected or published as they may inflame anti police sentiment jeopardizing Officer safety. violating the Officers’ privacy, renders police vulnerable to unfounded scrutiny and impacts the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Any videos from Police equipment should only be used in court and/or be released to the public with the approval of all police officers being filmed to protect their privacy. Police Dash Cam, Police and Jail surveillance video videos should only be used to protect Police, not as an internal affairs “gotcha-headhunter” tool. Unauthorized release of the video and audio would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police officers should be exempt from all making false statements laws
People who have no idea about the job of Law Enforcement should not be deciding the outcome in civil and criminal cases which involve the reasonable officer standard. Police officers should only be tried by a special court composed only of Law Enforcement officers.
“Brady cops” do not exist. Perjury in previous cases should not be a factor in judging a officer’s truthfulness and violates their privacy
It is illegal to make a false accusation against a Police officer.
Police officers accused of misconduct should be notified of all incriminating evidence or witness statements, be able to review it without an investigator looking into their actions during that process and remain silent for a 72 hours cooling off period afterwards. Additionally the officer has 30 days to get an attorney before they can be questioned by superiors, An officer may not be investigated on a misconduct accusation unless it was made within 90 days of the incident.
A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official authorized to administer oaths, by the aggrieved individual, a member of the aggrieved individual's immediate family. an individual with firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at and observed the alleged incident or the parent or guardian of the minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.
Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.
Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation.
The interrogation shall take place at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or at another reasonable and appropriate place. The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the law enforcement officer is on duty and h) Conduct of interrogation.-
All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer during any one session of interrogation. (23) Each session of interrogation shall be for a reasonable period; and allow for personal necessities and rest periods as reasonably necessary. Threat of transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer. The record may be written, taped, or transcribed. On completion of the investigation, and on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days before a hearing.
It is illegal to engage in Contempt of Cop behavior, taunting, provoking, disrespecting the law enforcement officer or questioning their knowledge of the Law.
Amendment to the US Constitution that the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights. takes precedent over other "Civil Rights" in the Bill of Rights.
I am sure that the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, that will grant and protect the special rights that Law Enforcement needs and deserves, would have the full support and backing of all Law Enforcement and Police groups and unions. 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was one of the chief proponents of a Police Officer's Bill of Rights.
I await your response.
