Cost of Police Misconduct Act of 2026
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7278
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-20T16:49:16Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Cost of Police Misconduct Act of 2026" aims to increase transparency and accountability in law enforcement by requiring federal, state, and local agencies to collect and report data on judgments and settlements related to officer misconduct. This data will help identify patterns of misconduct, inform best practices, and support efforts to reduce such incidents.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: The bill defines key terms, such as "allegation of misconduct" (any claim of unlawful, wrongful, or inappropriate actions by an officer during official duties), "law enforcement agency" (any entity involved in enforcing laws), "judgment" (a final court decision in a civil case), and "settlement" (an agreement resolving a legal dispute before court ruling). It also defines "professional law enforcement association" (groups like the Fraternal Order of Police) and "civil rights organization" (national groups monitoring fair law enforcement).
- Federal Agency Identification and Reporting:
- The Attorney General must identify and publicly list all federal law enforcement agencies within 120 days of enactment, updating annually.
- Starting 120 days after enactment, federal agencies must collect annual data on judgments and settlements for misconduct, including details like demographics of involved parties, type of misconduct (e.g., use of force, racial profiling, sexual assault), personnel actions (e.g., termination), payment amounts and sources (e.g., federal Judgment Fund), and any court-ordered remedies.
- Agencies report this data to the Attorney General within 60 days after each year (with possible 60-day extensions for good-faith efforts); initial reports include historical data if applicable.
- State and Local Agency Requirements (Tied to Federal Grants):
- The Attorney General notifies grant recipients under the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program within 30 days of enactment.
- Starting 120 days after enactment, these state and local governments must collect similar data for their law enforcement agencies, including payment sources (e.g., budgets, insurance) and costs like insurance premiums or bond interest.
- They report annually to the Attorney General within 60 days after each year (with extensions) and publish the data on their websites within 30 days of submission; initial reports include historical data.
- The Attorney General verifies reported data using public sources like news and court records.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance:
- Non-compliant state or local governments face up to a 10% reduction in Byrne JAG or Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program funds for the current or next fiscal year; withheld funds are reallocated to compliant entities.
- Studies, Reports, and Database:
- After two years of data collection, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts a study on trends, causes, costs, and recommendations to reduce misconduct, reporting findings to Congress and the public within three years.
- The Attorney General submits annual reports to Congress (starting after three years) with recommendations on use of force, best practices (developed with law enforcement and civil rights groups), data analysis, and other insights; reports are made public, respecting privacy laws.
- Within one year, the Attorney General creates and annually updates a public, searchable online database of all reported data (excluding personal identifiers of officers).
- Privacy Protections: The bill does not override the Privacy Act of 1974, which limits disclosure of personal information.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This legislation introduces new mandatory data collection and reporting requirements for misconduct-related judgments and settlements, which were not previously required at this scale. It links state and local compliance to federal grant funding (Byrne JAG and COPS programs), creating financial incentives not present before. It also mandates a national database and GAO/DOJ studies, expanding federal oversight without amending existing statutes like the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies face new administrative burdens for data collection and reporting, potentially improving internal accountability but requiring resources for compliance. State and local agencies risk funding cuts, which could strain budgets, but may encourage reforms to avoid penalties.
- On Citizens: Greater public access to misconduct data via websites and a national database could build trust by highlighting patterns (e.g., high-cost agencies or common misconduct types) and informing community oversight, though it may not directly affect individual rights.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic U.S. law enforcement.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Law Enforcement Agencies: Federal (e.g., FBI, DEA), state, and local police departments must comply with reporting, facing potential personnel and financial reviews.
- Department of Justice and Attorney General: Responsible for oversight, notifications, verification, database management, and issuing reports/guidelines.
- State and Local Governments: Grant recipients under Byrne JAG and COPS programs, who must collect data and risk funding reductions.
- Professional Law Enforcement Associations and Civil Rights Organizations: Consulted for best practices; associations may influence reforms, while civil rights groups gain data for advocacy.
- Taxpayers and Communities: Indirectly affected through funding reallocations and increased transparency on public costs of misconduct (e.g., settlements from budgets or insurance).
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Enhances accountability by standardizing misconduct reporting, potentially aiding civil rights investigations (e.g., pattern-or-practice probes under existing DOJ authority). It respects constitutional privacy rights via the Privacy Act but could face challenges if data collection is seen as overly burdensome under federalism principles (e.g., state autonomy).
- Constitutional Implications: No direct conflicts, but tying grants to compliance raises questions about conditional federal spending, which courts have upheld if not coercive (similar to cases like South Dakota v. Dole). Protects against disclosing officer identities, balancing transparency with due process.
- Political Implications: Supports police reform efforts by quantifying misconduct costs and promoting best practices, potentially polarizing debates between accountability advocates and law enforcement unions concerned about morale or litigation. The involvement of diverse associations (e.g., minority-focused groups) signals a push for equitable enforcement.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
Cosponsors (2)
Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-01-30: Introduced in House
- 2026-01-30: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Cost of Police Misconduct Act of 2026 — issued 2026-01-30 — PDF (18 pages)