Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville (right, at lectern) raises his hand during a debate in the Alabama House of Representatives on March 6, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Jackson criticized House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainsville (seated, top left) for not recognizing him to speak on a House agenda that included legislation extending police immunity. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama House of Representatives passed a bill expanding immunity for law enforcement officers 75-26 after three hours of debate on Thursday in which many Black members of the House shared stories of their encounters with police.
HB 202, sponsored by Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, has changed significantly from its original version. The legislation raises the bar for prosecuting law enforcement. The current standard allows prosecution where law enforcement acts “willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.”
The current bill limits misconduct to violations of rights in the Constitution of Alabama or the U.S. Constitution. The bill also protects law enforcement from civil litigation unless they acted recklessly without justification or if they violated people’s constitutional rights.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
In addition, the bill establishes a series of hearings to determine whether a law enforcement officer qualifies for immunity before a criminal prosecution or civil prosecution over alleged misconduct can take place. An officer can appeal rulings to the Alabama Supreme Court. An officer who is denied immunity may continue to pursue it as a defense at a trial.
Reynolds described the legislation as a way to improve recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and to feel confident in the decisions they make.
“I think everything we talked about in this bill for our law enforcement officers to feel that authority, that when it comes down to discretionary authority, and they’ve got a split second decision to make a call, that we just focus on that,” he said.
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups objected to the measure, saying it would allow law enforcement officers to act with impunity.
“It’s never been a good idea in American history to lower standards, but decrease accountability,” said Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, during debate over the bill. “And that’s one of the things that this bill attempts to do. I think we can establish that we all support police officers, but our job here is to also support the common citizen as well.”
Reynolds’ bill was significantly amended from a version that appeared in committee last month, the result of negotiations between the sponsor and Democratic lawmakers. The chamber passed a substitute 75-28 that included multiple amendments.
One amendment requires the court to issue a decision on a law enforcement officer’s immunity within 45 days of a pretrial hearing. Another added there is no justification for suppression of evidence obtained through an alleged unlawful search.
Many Black Democrats in the House shared the conversations they have had with their children to prevent violence in traffic stops. Rep. Tashina Morris, D-Montgomery, said that when her son turned 14, she had a conversation with him on how to act if he was pulled over by law enforcement.
“If you’re in a car with someone and the police stop, you always keep your hands on the back of the seat or on the dashboard,” she said. “When you turn 16 and you start driving, if you get pulled over, you keep your hands on the steering wheel.”
Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, said the bill would protect “bad apples” in law enforcement.
“I think that when we start talking about back the blue, let’s do it responsibly, that everybody is held accountable to whatever their actions are,” Drummond said. “If we continue to give immunity, total immunity, that’s going to hurt the profession even more.”
Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, said he was pulled over, but was not given a ticket after he told the officer that he is a state representative.
“He never told me I violated any law. I was profiled, and when he found out I was a legislator, he gave me my credentials back. Now, that is wrong,” he said. “If I’m breaking the law, stop me and give me a ticket. But he never told me what I was doing wrong.”
Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, asked how much immunity a police officer needs and that the legislation damages the judicial system.
“I stand firmly by my belief,” Givan said. “I started this conversation that I support law enforcement, but what you all are eventually doing, is slowly killing the judicial system.”
The bill passed along party lines, with the exception of three abstentions from Democratic Reps. Travis Hendrix of Birmingham; Pebblin Warren of Tuskegee and Barbara Boyd of Anniston.
The bill now goes to the Senate.
Jackson’s protest
Prior to the start of debate, Jackson criticized House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainsville, for not recognizing him to speak prior to the House’s adoption of a special order calendar, its agenda for Thursday.
“This is nothing but mind over matter. ‘I don’t mind, and you don’t matter.’ And that’s what you’re telling me this morning,” Jackson said. “We don’t matter because you don’t recognize our lights when they were on … we don’t matter.”
Other Democrats later used a portion of their debate time to protest the speaker’s actions saying it was disrespectful.
“A number of them had their lights on to debate the calendar, and they were not recognized,” Drummond said. “That’s disrespectful.”
Ledbetter told Jackson that recognizing members was at his discretion and urged Jackson to speak on the bill.
“We will stay on the bill,” Ledbetter said.
Jackson pushed back saying Ledbetter abused his authority.
“You have the authority, but you’re abusing it right now,” Jackson said. “Why can’t we be treated fairly in this place? There’s only 28 or 29 of us, a super minority. We have a right to be heard.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.