LEO K9 Protection Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4755
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-01T20:18:12Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The LEO K9 Protection Act aims to enhance protections for animals—specifically dogs and horses—used in law enforcement and related duties. It increases penalties for harming these animals, defines them clearly under federal law, and establishes guidelines and regulations to ensure injured police dogs receive timely emergency medical care and transportation.
Key Provisions
- Criminal Penalties for Harming Police Animals (Section 2): Amends Section 1368 of Title 18, United States Code (which addresses interference with police animals) to impose fines, up to 15 years in prison, or both on anyone who uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (even if it malfunctions) to harm a "police animal" during such interference.
- Defines "police animal" as a dog or horse serving federal, state, county, or local agencies (or assisting federal ones) primarily for detecting crimes, enforcing laws, apprehending suspects, detecting flammable materials or fires, locating missing persons (e.g., lost, trapped in disasters, or drowning victims), or in official military roles with the Department of Defense.
- Includes an exception: The law does not apply to individuals providing good-faith emergency veterinary care to an injured police animal.
- Guidance for Emergency Care of Injured Police Dogs (Section 3): Requires the Secretary of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Emergency Medical Services Initiatives, to issue guidance within 180 days of enactment. This guidance helps emergency medical services (EMS) personnel care for police dogs injured on duty, drawing from existing federal resources like Department of Homeland Security guidelines, Department of Defense protocols, and Canine Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines. Consultation with accredited veterinarians is allowed as needed.
- Regulations for Medical Transportation (Section 4): Mandates the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations within 240 days of enactment ensuring:
- Injured police dogs on duty can be transported to veterinary facilities if no humans at the scene require immediate medical attention or transport.
- Paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs) can provide emergency care to these dogs at the emergency scene or during transport to a vet clinic.
- Definition of "Police Dog" (Section 5): Refers to any dog that qualifies as a "police animal" under the amended federal law, including those serving state, county, or local agencies.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands Section 1368 of Title 18, U.S. Code, by replacing its subsection (b) with a stricter penalty (up to 15 years imprisonment for using a weapon) and adding new subsections (c) and (d) for a broader definition of protected animals and a care exception. Previously, this section focused on general interference with police dogs but lacked the detailed weapon-specific penalties, military inclusion, and horse coverage.
- Introduces new federal requirements for EMS guidance and transportation regulations, which did not exist before, shifting some responsibility to the Department of Transportation to support law enforcement animal welfare.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal, state, local, and military law enforcement agencies (e.g., police K9 units, fire investigators, search-and-rescue teams) will benefit from stronger legal protections for their working animals, potentially reducing risks and costs associated with animal injuries. The Department of Transportation and agencies like Homeland Security and Defense must collaborate on new guidance and rules, increasing administrative workload but improving coordination.
- On Citizens: Deters intentional harm to police animals through harsher penalties, which could enhance public safety by protecting tools used in crime detection and emergency response. EMS personnel gain clear protocols for animal care, potentially saving animal lives without delaying human care.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic U.S. law enforcement and agencies.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Law Enforcement and Military Personnel: Handlers and agencies relying on dogs and horses for duties like patrols, detections, and rescues, who gain better safeguards and support for injured animals.
- Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Providers: Paramedics and EMTs, who must adapt to new training and protocols for treating and transporting police dogs.
- Veterinarians and Animal Care Providers: Involved in emergency care, consultations, and facilities receiving transported animals.
- Potential Offenders: Individuals who might interfere with or harm police animals, facing escalated federal penalties.
- Federal Agencies: Including Transportation, Homeland Security, and Defense, responsible for implementation.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens federal criminal law by clarifying and expanding protections under Title 18, potentially leading to more prosecutions for animal interference in law enforcement contexts. The good-faith exception for veterinary care avoids criminalizing helpful actions, balancing enforcement with practical needs.
- Constitutional Implications: Aligns with the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce and criminal law (e.g., via the Commerce Clause), with no apparent conflicts to free speech, due process, or other rights; it targets specific harmful acts rather than broad restrictions.
- Political Implications: Supports law enforcement by prioritizing animal partners ("LEO" refers to Law Enforcement Officers, with "K9" emphasizing dogs), which may appeal to pro-police constituencies. It promotes inter-agency collaboration without mandating new funding, keeping implementation feasible.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (3)
Rep. Mills, Cory [R-FL-7], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-25: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-25: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-21: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3481)
Bill Versions
- LEO K9 Protection Act — issued 2025-07-25 — PDF (4 pages)