Arizona Police Association

While many public safety agencies have benefited from a productive partnership between employers and employees, other agencies have not. Currently, many states do not allow public safety employees the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. History shows that denying workers the right to bargain collectively causes poor morale, the waste of resources, unfair and inadequate working conditions, and low productivity. Ultimately, it is the public’s safety and security that is jeopardized by such poor working conditions for police.

NAPO has long championed the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which would:

• Give the right to public safety officers to form and join a union or association of their own choosing.
• Give the right to public safety officers to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions.
• Provide for fact finding and mediation to resolve disputes, which may include binding arbitration.
• Prohibit strikes and lockouts by public safety officers and agencies.
• Protect current state laws, certifications, and collective bargaining agreements.

States that offer equal or greater collective bargaining rights would be exempt from this federal statute. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will not overturn current collective bargaining laws – it will only provide the most basic of collective bargaining rights to those who currently do not have them.

  NAPO Position: There are many law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to preserve the security and peace that our nation enjoys.  However, these same officers are denied the basic American rights of collective bargaining for wages, hours, and safe working conditions. Basic collective bargaining rights must be extended to all state and local public safety officers.  

In addition to supporting the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (S. 636 / H.R. 1505), NAPO is working to protect the current collective bargaining rights of officers from being eroded.  We oppose any effort to eliminate language from collective bargaining agreements that protects officer due process during investigations of misconduct and their ability to bargain over disciplinary and accountability issues.

In addition, sometimes individuals are reluctant to file a complaint against an officer, perceiving correctly or incorrectly that management will not take the complaint seriously and conduct an inquiry.  Often departments lack any guidelines and procedures for handling and investigating complaints, thus raising doubts about officer accountability.

  The Law Enforcement Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act would provide officers with the following protections:  

• Officers would have the right to engage in civic activity and would not be prohibited from running for elective office because of their profession.

• Departments would have to establish effective procedures for receipt, review, and investigation of law enforcement and other complaints against law enforcement officers.
• If disciplinary action is foreseeable, officers would be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, the eventual outcome of the inquiry, and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.
• Questioning of a law enforcement officer would be conducted at reasonable times, preferably while the officer is on duty, unless exigent circumstances apply.
• Questioning of the law enforcement officer would take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.
• A single investigator would question officers, and the officer would be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.
• Officers could not be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.
• Officers under investigation would be entitled to have legal counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the questioning.
• Officers would be entitled to a hearing, notification in advance of the date of the hearing, and access to transcripts and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing. The officer would also be entitled to be represented by legal counsel or another representative at the hearing.
• Officers would have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.
• There would be defined 'just cause' factors to be considered by the hearing officer or board for an officer to be found guilty or liable for disciplinary action; and mitigating factors would also be noted, which could reduce the severity of the disciplinary action.

NAPO also supports the implementation of standards to guide law enforcement agencies in developing and operating a fair and effective investigative process.  Individuals should have the right to file a complaint, to have the complaint investigated, and to be informed of its final disposition, including learning the outcome of the investigation and any resulting disciplinary action.

Consequently, NAPO has actively fought for the enactment of this legislation since 1990. In consultation with attorneys representing law enforcement officers, NAPO will continue to exert every effort with Congress and other national interest groups to support this legislation, protect officer due process, and improve transparency and accountability in law enforcement agencies.

Background: Serving as the lead national law enforcement organization, NAPO worked tirelessly with members of Congress and the Administration to enact the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program in 1994.  Since its inception, the COPS Office, within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), has been extremely successful in implementing and carrying out its designated objectives. To date, the COPS Hiring Program has assisted over 16,000 jurisdictions with over $14 billion in funding to hire more than 135,000 community policing officers across the United States. This funding has contributed to continued success in combating crime, drug use, and gangs; reducing and preventing the manufacture, distribution, and use of illegal drugs; improving law enforcement and community relations; and addressing emerging law enforcement needs.

In recent years, the COPS Office has taken on additional NAPO priorities such as the National Blue Alert Network, the Officer Safety and Wellness Working Group, the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act (LEMHWA) and the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis (STOIC) Act program, both of which promote officer mental wellness and peer mentoring.

In addition to the COPS Program, state and local law enforcement benefit greatly from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program, as it is the only comprehensive federal

crime-fighting program.  It allows for a system wide approach that enables communities to target resources to their most pressing local needs.  This important program funds state and local law enforcement, including multi-jurisdictional drug and gang task forces, information sharing and technology, county jails, prosecutors, drug courts, and juvenile delinquency and drug treatment programs.  In fact, it is the only source of federal funding for multi-jurisdictional task forces and prosecutors.

With the passage of the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act in December 2022, Byrne JAG funding will go towards supporting best practices in de-escalation training and law enforcement/mental health treatment partnerships and to support train-the-trainer trainings nationwide.

COPS, together with Byrne JAG, provide state and local law enforcement with necessary funding to assist their efforts to keep communities safe.

Other DOJ state and local law enforcement assistance grant programs NAPO strongly supports:

• The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Program, a critical resource that helps state and local agencies purchase bullet-resistant body armor for their officers.
• Project Safe Neighborhoods, which continues to be a vital program in state and local law enforcement efforts to reduce violent crime in our communities.
• The Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program under the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) assists state and local law enforcement agencies purchase and lease body-worn cameras (BWC) and establish BWC programs.

NAPO Position: Most law enforcement officials and the public recognize the benefits of putting more police on the street, which is why initiatives to put and maintain more officers in the field to promote community policing and fight crime should be continued.  As major cities across the country are facing serious recruitment and retention challenges and violent crime remains high, now is not the time to put additional stress on state and local police forces by leaving them short-handed. It is vital that the COPS Program and the Byrne-JAG Program be adequately funded.

In addition to our continued efforts to reauthorize and increase funding for the COPS and Byrne JAG programs, we are also fighting to preserve the original intent of the COPS Program: to support the hiring and retention of community police officers. The COPS Program should not be used as a tool to move a distinct political agenda at the expense of critical funding for the hiring and retention of officers as well as officer and community safety measures such as lowering response time for emergency calls and two officer patrol units.

NAPO supports the Invest to Protect Act (S. 768 / H.R. 2711), the Strong Communities Act (S. 1316 / H.R. 3458), and the COPS Reauthorization Act.

State and local law enforcement officers are our nation’s first responders. They respond to our country’s greatest tragedies as well as violent crimes and horrible accidents that unfortunately occur more frequently in our communities. They have seen and experienced horrors that they cannot forget, yet they still put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve our communities.

In passing the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act (LEMHWA) (Public Law No. 115-113), the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis (STOIC) Act (Public Law No. 116-32), and the COPS Counseling Act (Public Law No. 117-60) – all NAPO priority legislation – Congress recognized the stress and strain of the job and acted to help give officers the resources they need to address their emotional and mental wellbeing.

These programs help law enforcement agencies establish or enhance mental health care services for their officers by making grants available to initiate and expand confidential peer mentoring programs, developing resources for mental health providers based on the specific mental health challenges faced by law enforcement, and supporting law enforcement officers by studying the effectiveness of crisis hotlines and annual mental health checks.  Peer mentoring and peer support programs in particular have proven vital to successful officer mental health and wellness programs as officers are able to cope more effectively by talking with someone who knows and understands what they are going through.

Further, officers are first and foremost public servants. Unless the strictest privacy standards are established and maintained, an officer’s mental health care, including that through peer mentoring services, can be discoverable on the public record, used in court proceedings, or affect their employment. Officers feel more comfortable admitting their concerns and asking questions and are more likely to take advantage of mental health services when they know those services will be confidential.

Approximately only half of states provide confidentiality protections to critical incident debriefs and peer support services. In these states, the group debriefings, conducted by peer support and mental health professionals, are protected.  Do-not-discuss orders are suspended for the duration of the debriefing and officers are free to discuss their feelings and concerns. All communications and records kept during these debriefings may not be disclosed in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, with certain, limited exceptions.

NAPO Position: Our nation’s law enforcement officers have given up so much to protect and serve our communities. The least we can do is ensure they have the mental health and wellness services they need for the safety of themselves, their families and communities.

While Congress appropriated $10 million for these programs in FY 2025, significantly more funding is needed for the establishment and expansion of confidential peer counseling services in order to adequately meet the demand in cities and states across the country.

We also believe that the Federal Rules of Evidence must be amended to expand the privileges section (Rule 501) to exclude from introduction into evidence in federal proceedings statements made by an officer in the context of critical incident peer debriefs and peer-involved mental health care for officers involved in highly stressful situations.

NAPO supports full and robust funding for peer mentoring programs and mental health services for all officers.  Further, NAPO is calling for legislation to make all communications made by officers to crisis counseling services (including peer services), and all records related to the communications, confidential.

NAPO supports the Fighting PTSD Act (S. 825), the First Responder Wellness Act (S. 666), and the Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for Officers in Crisis (STOIC) Act (S. 419 / H.R. 5282

State and local governments were excluded from the Social Security Act of 1935 because there were (and still are) questions as to the extent to which the federal government could tax state and local governments. Also, many state and local governments had their own pension systems. The 1950 amendments to the Act allowed state and local governments to voluntarily participate in the Social Security program, and a number of states joined the system. In July of 1991, Social Security was made mandatory for state and local government employees who do not participate in any employer/employee retirement system.

Mandating Social Security taxes on the 70 percent of public safety officers not presently covered would have a dramatic and negative impact on the recruitment and retention of well-qualified public safety officers. In addition, it would constitute an unfunded mandate on public safety agencies, amounting to more than $1 billion in the first year alone. Under a mandatory Social Security system, law enforcement officers would pay more for fewer benefits, when compared to their current pension plans.

Social Security was not designed for and does not address the special needs of law enforcement officers as follows:

1. Officers and their families need the security of service-connected disability and death benefits. Social Security benefits do not provide anywhere near the same level of benefits of current public safety pension plans and provide no disability benefits unless one is totally unable to perform any work, not just public safety work.
2. Social Security is not appropriate for public safety officers who normally retire prior to, or around 55 years of age, due to the stresses, dangers, and injuries of the job. Unlike current plans, where officers may retire after 20 or more years of service, Social Security would not pay these individuals until they reached 62, 67, or even 70 years of age. Forcing police officers to work until the age of 70 would negatively impact public safety.

If enacted into law, mandatory Social Security taxes on public safety workers would do the following:

• A majority of state and local government entities would both pay the newly imposed 6.2 percent tax, (the employer’s half of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax), and retain their current pension systems, because they are required to do so by law or collective bargaining agreements. Imposing Social Security taxes on these state and local governments would strain their budgets and would have serious consequences on the pay and working conditions of their public safety officers.
• Officers would automatically suffer a de facto pay decrease through the newly imposed 6.2 percent tax, (the employee’s half of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax), and it would become more difficult to retain the most qualified officers.
• Because raising taxes to make up the difference is not politically feasible, state and local governments would likely take two or more of the following actions: (1) decrease the number of public safety officers to retain current pay levels and benefits; (2) reduce the pay of law enforcement officers; (3) freeze future cost-of-living increases; or (4) not provide public safety officers with the essential equipment and resources needed to effectively perform their work.
• Most state and local governments would pay the 6.2 percent tax by proportionally reducing their contributions to current pension systems. Trying to blend the special needs of actuarially funded pensions systems with the structure of Social Security would create serious complications and costs for benefit design and administration, as well as collective bargaining. Over time, mandatory Social Security taxes, even if only applied to new hires, would threaten the financial viability of sound, secure, and long-standing retirement systems, eventually destroying the existing retirement and disability benefits for public safety officers.
• Reducing employer and employee contributions to current pension plans in order to pay Social Security taxes would have serious repercussions for those employees already having vested rights and would make it difficult to recruit the best candidates for public safety work. Over time, the increasing transfer of significant contributions (of both employers and employees) from pension funds to Social Security would severely reduce the investment income, as more grandfathered employees in the current systems retire and new employees covered by Social Security are hired to replace them. This would cause pension funds to be under-funded and reduce benefits, seriously harming the future benefits paid to retirees.
• Significantly scaling back and reducing current retirement pensions, death benefits, and line-of-duty disability pay for public safety officers, even if done only for new hires, would provide public safety officers and their families with much less protection. This would cause law enforcement and firefighting to become much less desirable as careers. Retention of current public safety officers and recruitment of new officers would become difficult.

NAPO Position: NAPO supports a long-term solution, so long as such a solution does not mandate that all or some state and local government employees, including newly hired ones and their employing agencies, be required to pay Social Security taxes. Adding presently non-covered public safety workers will not fix the basic problems of Social Security. While it will bring new workers into the Social Security system, the system will also have to assume a liability for these new workers, which will eventually have to be paid.

Even if Social Security taxes were limited to new hires, the likely consequences of mandatory Social Security taxes, including reduced benefits, lower salaries, and/or frozen cost-of-living increases, would make law enforcement and fire safety work less financially desirable. It makes no sense whatsoever to tamper with a system of pension funds that is working well and paying needed benefits to those who serve and protect the public.

There has not been any recent legislation on this issue. NAPO will continue to serve as the key representative of law enforcement in defending this issue before members of Congress.

State and local governments were excluded from the Social Security Act of 1935 because there were (and still are) questions as to the extent to which the federal government could tax state and local governments. Also, many state and local governments had their own pension systems. The 1950 amendments to the Act allowed state and local governments to voluntarily participate in the Social Security program, and a number of states joined the system. In July of 1991, Social Security was made mandatory for state and local government employees who do not participate in any employer/employee retirement system.

Mandating Social Security taxes on the 70 percent of public safety officers not presently covered would have a dramatic and negative impact on the recruitment and retention of well-qualified public safety officers. In addition, it would constitute an unfunded mandate on public safety agencies, amounting to more than $1 billion in the first year alone. Under a mandatory Social Security system, law enforcement officers would pay more for fewer benefits, when compared to their current pension plans.

Social Security was not designed for and does not address the special needs of law enforcement officers as follows:

1. Officers and their families need the security of service-connected disability and death benefits. Social Security benefits do not provide anywhere near the same level of benefits of current public safety pension plans and provide no disability benefits unless one is totally unable to perform any work, not just public safety work.
2. Social Security is not appropriate for public safety officers who normally retire prior to, or around 55 years of age, due to the stresses, dangers, and injuries of the job. Unlike current plans, where officers may retire after 20 or more years of service, Social Security would not pay these individuals until they reached 62, 67, or even 70 years of age. Forcing police officers to work until the age of 70 would negatively impact public safety.

If enacted into law, mandatory Social Security taxes on public safety workers would do the following:

• A majority of state and local government entities would both pay the newly imposed 6.2 percent tax, (the employer’s half of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax), and retain their current pension systems, because they are required to do so by law or collective bargaining agreements. Imposing Social Security taxes on these state and local governments would strain their budgets and would have serious consequences on the pay and working conditions of their public safety officers.
• Officers would automatically suffer a de facto pay decrease through the newly imposed 6.2 percent tax, (the employee’s half of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax), and it would become more difficult to retain the most qualified officers.
• Because raising taxes to make up the difference is not politically feasible, state and local governments would likely take two or more of the following actions: (1) decrease the number of public safety officers to retain current pay levels and benefits; (2) reduce the pay of law enforcement officers; (3) freeze future cost-of-living increases; or (4) not provide public safety officers with the essential equipment and resources needed to effectively perform their work.
• Most state and local governments would pay the 6.2 percent tax by proportionally reducing their contributions to current pension systems. Trying to blend the special needs of actuarially funded pensions systems with the structure of Social Security would create serious complications and costs for benefit design and administration, as well as collective bargaining. Over time, mandatory Social Security taxes, even if only applied to new hires, would threaten the financial viability of sound, secure, and long-standing retirement systems, eventually destroying the existing retirement and disability benefits for public safety officers.
• Reducing employer and employee contributions to current pension plans in order to pay Social Security taxes would have serious repercussions for those employees already having vested rights and would make it difficult to recruit the best candidates for public safety work. Over time, the increasing transfer of significant contributions (of both employers and employees) from pension funds to Social Security would severely reduce the investment income, as more grandfathered employees in the current systems retire and new employees covered by Social Security are hired to replace them. This would cause pension funds to be under-funded and reduce benefits, seriously harming the future benefits paid to retirees.
• Significantly scaling back and reducing current retirement pensions, death benefits, and line-of-duty disability pay for public safety officers, even if done only for new hires, would provide public safety officers and their families with much less protection. This would cause law enforcement and firefighting to become much less desirable as careers. Retention of current public safety officers and recruitment of new officers would become difficult.

NAPO Position: NAPO supports a long-term solution, so long as such a solution does not mandate that all or some state and local government employees, including newly hired ones and their employing agencies, be required to pay Social Security taxes. Adding presently non-covered public safety workers will not fix the basic problems of Social Security. While it will bring new workers into the Social Security system, the system will also have to assume a liability for these new workers, which will eventually have to be paid.

Even if Social Security taxes were limited to new hires, the likely consequences of mandatory Social Security taxes, including reduced benefits, lower salaries, and/or frozen cost-of-living increases, would make law enforcement and fire safety work less financially desirable. It makes no sense whatsoever to tamper with a system of pension funds that is working well and paying needed benefits to those who serve and protect the public.

There has not been any recent legislation on this issue. NAPO will continue to serve as the key representative of law enforcement in defending this issue before members of Congress.

Background: Individuals with mental illnesses are significantly overrepresented in the prison and jail population. State and local governments are increasingly finding the need for greater collaboration between criminal justice, juvenile justice, and mental health and substance abuse treatment systems to better allocate resources across systems, increase connections to needed services, and reduce recidivism.

Further, law enforcement officers are on the front lines in responding to and intervening in mental and behavioral health crises. Officers need to be given the tools and training necessary to identify and respond to mental health issues in the communities they serve.  This supports improved responses and outcomes to interactions between police officers and persons affected by mental illness.

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004 and authorized a $50 million grant program to be administered by the DOJ. The law created the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) to help states and counties design and implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health systems.

In 2022, Congress reauthorized the JMHCP for an additional five years. The reauthorization expanded training for law enforcement to identify and respond appropriately to individuals with mental illnesses. It also strengthened support for crisis intervention teams and mental health courts and reinforced support for co-responder teams, amongst other important programmatic improvements.

For Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025, Congress recognized the importance of the JMHCP and funded it at $40 million. This funding is vital to ensuring better law enforcement and community responses to persons experiencing mental health and substance abuse crises.

NAPO Position: NAPO is a strong supporter of the JMHCP and expanded mental health and crisis intervention training for law enforcement officers. The JMHCP helps criminal justice and mental health agencies work collaboratively towards better outcomes and assists law enforcement agencies across the United States in their responsibilities in assisting citizens with mental health conditions.

NAPO continues to support efforts to improve access to mental health services for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and to provide law enforcement officers the tools and training they need to identify and respond to mental health issues in the communities they serve.

Background: As an organization representing rank-and-file officers, NAPO supports improved policing practices, particularly regarding ensuring transparency, accountability, and improved training in law enforcement. However, we have strong concerns when it comes to diminishing the rights of law enforcement officers to protect themselves and the public. 

The areas of most significant concern include efforts to amend Section 242 of Title 18 United States Code to lower the standard for mens rea and the practical elimination of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers.  Combined, these two provisions take away any legal protections for officers while making it easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the job, not just criminal acts.  With the change to qualified immunity, an officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly violated an unknown and unknowable “right”. NAPO recognizes that officers are accountable for their actions, but the consequence of this would be making criminals out of decent officers enforcing the laws in good faith.

Another issue of serious concern is proposed changes to the current legal standard of “objective reasonableness” for the use of force announced in the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Graham v. Connor.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the most important factor to consider in applying force is the threat faced by the officer or others at the scene.  The use of force must be reasonable given what the officer perceived to be the threat at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that runs throughout the police reform narrative is that law enforcement officers should not be given the right to due process, a right we give all citizens, a right all unions and associations work to protect for their members in disciplinary actions. This is incredibly concerning. Law enforcement officers must be given due process during internal investigations, administrative hearings, and evaluation of citizen complaints.  Too often law enforcement officers are subjected to the whim of their departments or local politics during internal investigations and administrative hearings.

NAPO Position: For any police reform to be both fair and effective, the views of rank-and-file officers, who work tirelessly to keep our communities safe and have firsthand knowledge of the issues that are being considered, must be engaged. Law enforcement officers have the greatest stake in the outcomes of any forthcoming policies and legislation, both as public safety officers who are responsible for carrying out the law, and as citizens of communities that will be impacted by new policies on public safety.  It is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for them when considering when and how they may defend themselves.

NAPO is fighting to safeguard the legal protections for our nation’s law enforcement officers and protect their right to defend themselves and the public. We support the Qualified Immunity Act (S. 122).

 Background: NAPO is proud to have worked with members of Congress to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) in 2004 to allow well-qualified off-duty and retired officers to carry their firearms for the protection of themselves, their families, and our nation’s communities. However, today, qualified off-duty and retired officers continue to encounter unnecessary roadblocks when exercising their legal right to carry a firearm.

NAPO supports the LEOSA Reform Act (S. 679 / H.R. 2243), which would address the specific issues being faced by officers in exercising these rights, including expanding the areas qualified current or retired officers are allowed to carry a firearm, such as in a school zone.  LEOSA currently does not exempt an officer from the Gun Free School Zone Act, while federal statute exempts concealed carry permits from that Act. This would bring LEOSA in line with federal concealed carry law.

Importantly, the LEOSA Reform Act also addresses the issues of magazine capacity and qualification for concealed carry under LEOSA. While LEOSA exempts officers from state restrictions on the type of ammunition that can be carried, it does not exempt them from state restrictions regarding magazine capacity. Many officers when traveling to other states unknowingly put themselves at legal jeopardy when their magazine does not comply with state law. The LEOSA Reform Act would allow officers to carry any magazine not prohibited by federal law.

Regarding qualification to carry under LEOSA, the legislation would amend the qualification standards to allow retired law enforcement officers to obtain certification from any certified firearms instructor, which could include retired law enforcement firearms instructors and civilian firearms instructors, and the officers may be qualified to any state standard. This would address issues many retired officers, particularly those who retired to a different state than the one they served in, have faced when trying to qualify under LEOSA.

NAPO Position: NAPO firmly believes that all qualified off-duty and retired or separated officers across the country should be able to carry firearms for the protection of themselves, their families, and our nation’s communities.

With the rise in targeted violence against law enforcement officers and violent crimes in our communities, allowing all qualified officers and retirees, who have sworn to serve and protect our communities, to be armed in accordance with LEOSA would allow them to respond more efficiently and effectively in emergencies for the safety of themselves and those around them. The LEOSA Reform Act will go a long way to ensuring all qualified off-duty and retired officers across the country can legally carry their firearm under the law.

Cross-border crime by gangs is a significant concern for law enforcement as it impacts communities both along our Southwest border and across the country as drugs trafficked across the border are transported and sold on our neighborhood streets. Along with drugs, gangs bring an increase in assaults, larceny, and burglary to our communities. Targeting aliens associated with criminal gangs and violent crimes for deportation would give law enforcement an important tool in fighting cross-border gang crimes as well as the steady growth in gang participation nationwide.

Sanctuary policies in cities and jurisdictions across the country, however, make it difficult for law enforcement to effectively protect communities from violent criminal aliens. The country’s immigration system relies on local law enforcement complying with immigration detainers - requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for local law enforcement to hold an illegal immigrant temporarily - to give federal law enforcement an opportunity to take the individual into custody. Sanctuary cities forbid their local law enforcement from fully cooperating with federal immigration officials, which has led to the release of violent criminals back into our communities.

Complicating the matter, several courts have ruled that local law enforcement officers may be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment if they comply with an immigration detainer, even if the detainer was lawfully issued and the detention would have been legal if carried out by DHS. This means that dangerous criminals cannot be held and must be released. Recent Legislative History: 117th Congress (2021-2023)  

• S. 42, “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” Sponsor: Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) 116th Congress (2019-2021)
• S. 1644, “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” Sponsor: Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA)
• H.R. 3000, “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) 115th Congress (2017-2019)
• S. 52, A bill to make aliens associated with a criminal gang inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible for various forms of relief. Sponsor: Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA).
• S. 87, “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” Sponsor: Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA).
• H.R. 400, “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)
• S. 1757, “Building America’s Trust Act.” Sponsor: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

NAPO also supports legislation that explicitly states that local law enforcement officers have legal authority to comply with immigration detainers.

Mexico is not the only country that harbors violent felons who have fled the United States to avoid facing justice. Joanne Chesimard is the only woman on the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list for her role in the coldblooded killing of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in 1973. She fled to Cuba and is currently living free there. Her ability – and the ability of other felons like her – to live life freely after the horrendous acts she committed is an affront to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities as law enforcement officers – above all to the family and friends of police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Recent Legislative History: 116th Congress (2019-2021)  

• H.Res. 92, A resolution calling for the immediate extradition of Joanne Chesimard and all other fugitives from justice. Sponsor: Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• S.Res. 232, A resolution calling for the immediate extradition of Joanne Chesimard and all other fugitives from justice. Sponsor: Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Additionally, NAPO is lobbying the Administration to prioritize the extradition of cop-killers and terrorists as a precondition to any further normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba.

Federal action will ensure that this growing issue of the United States Government’s inability to extradite violent criminals who flee to Mexico, Cuba or other criminal havens is rightly addressed. NAPO is working to ensure that all criminals who flee the United States are promptly returned.

The PSOB Program not only provides death and disability benefits to eligible public safety officers and their survivors, but also offers financial assistance for higher education for the spouses and children of federal, state, and local public safety officers through the Public Safety Officers’ Educational Assistance (PSOEA) Program.

The current state of the PSOB Program, however, does little to instill confidence in officers that the federal government will do its part to take care of them should they become disabled in the line of duty, which is why we worked to introduce the Protecting America’s First Responders Act.

The stringent requirements for PSOB disability benefits make it extremely difficult for officers to qualify, which goes against what Congress intended when it created the disability benefit in 1990. The strict requirements for disabled officers to qualify for PSOB disability benefits must be eased in order to ensure that officers who are catastrophically injured in the line of duty, but can still perform some level of meaningful work, would still qualify for the much-needed benefit. The PSOB Program has largely left disabled officers have been behind. Recent Legislative History: 117th Congress (2021-2023)  

• H.R. 483, “Heroes Lesley Zerebny and Gilbert Vega First Responders Survivors Support Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA)
• H.R. 2936, “Protecting America’s First Responders Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ)
• S. 1511, “Protecting America’s First Responders Act.” Sponsor: Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
• H.R. 3071, “Public Safety Officer Support Act.” Sponsor: Rep. David Trone (D-MD) 116th Congress (2019-2021)
• H.R. 2812, “Protecting America’s First Responders Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ)
• S. 1208, “Protecting America’s First Responders Act.” Sponsor: Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
• S. 3607, “Safeguarding America’s First Responders Act.” Sponsor: Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) PASSED
• H.R. 1210, “Heroes Lesley Zerebny and Gilbert Vega First Responders Survivors Support Act.” Sponsor: Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA)
• S. 465, “Heroes Lesley Zerebny and Gilbert Vega First Responders Survivors Support Act.” Sponsor: Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
• H.R. 7568, “Public Safety Officer Support Act.” Sponsor: Rep. David Trone (D-MD)

NAPO also supports efforts to ensure that survivors of an officer whose death was the result of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), including suicide, receive PSOB death benefits, and worked to introduce the Public Safety Officer Support Act.

State and local governments have often found their interests and judgments in managing their own affairs vitiated by the federal courts’ structuring of consent decrees. Consent decrees often exemplify a top-down, Washington knows best, one-size-fits all, coercive approach to how state and local policing should be done, what officers should look like, and even what they should think and believe. Such agreements do not instill a sense of partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the law enforcement agencies they address, which affects the efficacy of the consent decrees. They also have deleterious effects on officer morale and public safety as rank-and-file officers feel attacked and unsupported by their governments and political officials.

NAPO Position: The DOJ should provide state and local governmental entities, including rank-and-file officers and their representatives, an adequate opportunity to respond to any allegations of legal violations; require special caution before using a consent decree to resolve disputes with state or local governmental entities; limit the circumstances in which a consent decree may be appropriate; and limit the terms for consent decrees with state and local governmental entities, including terms requiring the use of monitors.

NAPO strongly supports protecting the interests of state and local governments in managing their own affairs and limiting the duration of federal consent decrees to which state and local governments are party. Further, consent decrees should not over-reach in forcing superfluous policies on police departments. NAPO will work to seek a mandatory time limit for monitoring programs instituted under federal consent decrees. This will protect the interests of state and local governments in managing their own affairs. Further, we are willing to take legislative action, if necessary, to control the scope and timeframe of federal consent decrees.