PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2016
Corey Jones Act of 2016
This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require an applicant under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to certify that no law enforcement agency that receives COPS grant funds allows officers to conduct routine traffic stops while wearing plainclothes or while wearing plainclothes and in an unmarked police vehicle.
The Department of Justice may not waive this so-called plainclothes certification requirement.
If a law enforcement officer's conduct violates the plainclothes certification and results in serious injury or death of a person, then that person may bring a civil action against the law enforcement officer and any state, local, or tribal government that is a COPS program grantee and has direct authority over such officer.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20] · D–FL
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, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.4355 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.4355 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.4355 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.4355 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.