I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 354 
To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide both State and 
local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers during inter-
nal investigations, interrogation of law enforcement officers, and adminis-
trative disciplinary hearings, to ensure accountability of law enforcement 
officers, to guarantee the due process rights of law enforcement officers, 
and to require States to enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, 
and due process laws. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 25, 2005 
Mr. RAMSTAD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures 
to guide both State and local law enforcement agencies 
and law enforcement officers during internal investiga-
tions, interrogation of law enforcement officers, and ad-
ministrative disciplinary hearings, to ensure account-
ability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due 
process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require 
States to enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, 
and due process laws.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Law 
Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process 
Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND 
POLICY. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 
(1) the rights of law enforcement officers to en-
gage in political activity or to refrain from engaging 
in political activity, except when on duty, or to run 
as candidates for public office, unless such service is 
found to be in conflict with their service as officers, 
are activities protected by the first amendment of 
the United States Constitution, as applied to the 
States through the 14th amendment of the United 
States Constitution, but these rights are often vio-
lated by the management of State and local law en-
forcement agencies; 
(2) a significant lack of due process rights of 
law enforcement officers during internal investiga-
tions and disciplinary proceedings has resulted in a 
loss of confidence in these processes by many law 
enforcement officers, including those unfairly tar-
geted for their labor organization activities or for 
their aggressive enforcement of the laws, demor-
alizing many rank and file officers in communities 
and States; 
(3) unfair treatment of officers has potentially 
serious long-term consequences for law enforcement 
by potentially deterring or otherwise preventing offi-
cers from carrying out their duties and responsibil-
ities effectively and fairly; 
(4) the lack of labor-management cooperation 
in disciplinary matters and either the perception or 
the actuality that officers are not treated fairly det-
rimentally impacts the recruitment of and retention 
of effective officers, as potential officers and experi-
enced officers seek other careers which has serious 
implications and repercussions for officer morale, 
public safety, and labor-management relations and 
strife and can affect interstate and intrastate com-
merce, interfering with the normal flow of com-
merce; 
(5) there are serious implications for the public 
safety of the citizens and residents of the United 
States which threatens the domestic tranquility of 
the United States because of a lack of statutory pro-
tections to ensure—
(i) the due process and political rights of 
law enforcement officers; 
(ii) fair and thorough internal investiga-
tions and interrogations of and disciplinary pro-
ceedings against law enforcement officers; and 
(iii) effective procedures for receipt, review, 
and investigation of complaints against officers, 
fair to both officers and complainants; and 
(6) resolving these disputes and problems and 
preventing the disruption of vital police services is 
essential to the well-being of the United States and 
the domestic tranquility of the Nation. 
(b) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—Congress declares 
that it is the purpose of this Act and the policy of the 
United States to— 
(1) protect the due process and political rights 
of State and local law enforcement officers and en-
sure equality and fairness of treatment among such 
officers; 
(2) provide continued police protection to the 
general public; 
(3) provide for the general welfare and ensure 
domestic tranquility; and 
(4) prevent any impediments to the free flow of 
commerce, under the rights guaranteed under the
United States Constitution and Congress’ authority 
thereunder. 
SEC. 3. DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DUE PROCESS 
OF OFFICERS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part H of title I of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
3781 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 820. DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DUE PROC-
ESS OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCE-
MENT OFFICERS. 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) DISCIPLINARY
ACTION.—The term ‘dis-
ciplinary action’ means any adverse personnel action, 
including suspension, reduction in pay, rank, or 
other employment benefit, dismissal, transfer, reas-
signment, unreasonable denial of secondary employ-
ment, or similar punitive action taken against a law 
enforcement officer. 
‘‘(2) DISCIPLINARY HEARING.—The term ‘dis-
ciplinary hearing’ means an administrative hearing 
initiated by a law enforcement agency against a law 
enforcement officer, based on an alleged violation of 
law, that, if proven, would subject the law enforce-
ment officer to disciplinary action.
‘‘(3) EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION.—The term 
‘emergency suspension’ means the temporary action 
by a law enforcement agency of relieving a law en-
forcement officer from the active performance of law 
enforcement duties without a reduction in pay or 
benefits when the law enforcement agency, or an of-
ficial within that agency, determines that there is 
probable cause, based upon the conduct of the law 
enforcement officer, to believe that the law enforce-
ment officer poses an immediate threat to the safety 
of that officer or others or the property of others. 
‘‘(4) INVESTIGATION.—The term ‘investiga-
tion’— 
‘‘(A) means an action taken to determine 
whether a law enforcement officer violated a 
law by a public agency or a person employed by 
a public agency, acting alone or in cooperation 
with or at the direction of another agency, or 
a division or unit within another agency, re-
gardless of a denial by such an agency that any 
such action is not an investigation; and 
‘‘(B) includes— 
‘‘(i) asking questions of any other law 
enforcement officer or non-law enforcement 
officer;