PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 2, 1998
Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 1998 - Provides for a 33 percent reduction in funds provided to a State under title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the drug control and system improvement grant, or Byrne, program) unless, with respect to a law enforcement officer who is under investigation by an employing agency involving matters which could reasonably lead to such officer's dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer for punitive reasons: (1) the employing agency has written procedures to ensure that any such officer is afforded access to any existing administrative process established by the agency prior to the imposition of disciplinary action; and (2) such procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under investigation to a hearing before a fair and impartial board or hearing officer, to be represented by an attorney or other officer at the officer's expense, to confront any witnesses testifying against such officer, and to record all meetings such officer attends. (Sec. 3) Exempts from this Act an employing agency that has in effect: (1) an established civil service system, agency review board, or civilian complaint or personnel board which meets or exceeds such minimum standards; or (2) other means of providing due process. (Sec. 4) Specifies that nothing herein shall prevent the immediate suspension with pay of any law enforcement officer: (1) whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the employing agency or the public; (2) who refuses to obey a direct order issued in conformance with the agency's written and disseminated rules and regulations; or (3) who is accused of committing an illegal act. Grants an officer, in a case that requires that officer's immediate suspension, the rights provided for under this Act, except that an officer's request to be heard by a complaint review board shall be made after the imposition of such suspension.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Bob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
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.
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 21, 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.4681 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.4681 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.4681 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.4681 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.