PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 5, 2011
State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2011 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to set forth the due process rights, including procedures, that shall be afforded a law enforcement officer (officer) who is the subject of an investigation or disciplinary hearing.
Declares that an officer shall not be: (1) prohibited from engaging in political activity or be denied the right to refrain from engaging in such activity, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity; and (2) prohibited from being a candidate for an elective office or from serving in such elective office solely because of the officer's status as an officer, with exceptions.
Requires: (1) each state or local law enforcement agency to adopt and comply with a written complaint procedure that meets specified requirements, (2) an investigation based on a complaint from outside the agency about a law enforcement officer to commence not later than 15 days after receipt of the complaint by such agency or by any other agency charged with investigating such complaint, and (3) any officer who is the subject of an investigation to be notified of the investigation 24 hours before the commencement of questioning.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Grants procedural protections to officers subjected to questioning incidental to an investigation that may result in disciplinary action, including: (1) the right to effective counsel, (2) the right to be questioned at a reasonable hour, (3) written notice of investigative findings and disciplinary recommendations and the right to submit a written response, and (4) access to the complete file of the investigation and the right to examine physical evidence. Prohibits an officer from being compelled to submit to the use of a lie detector.
Sets forth requirements and procedures for conducting disciplinary proceedings and for protecting the officer's personnel records.
People & committees
Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3207)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1789 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1789 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1789 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1789 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.