Representative Jennifer Stewart: "I hope we’ll have the courage to finally repeal LEOBOR..."

"Maryland, the first state to implement LEOBOR, repealed it. If we could follow their example to pass it in the first place, we can follow their example to get rid of it."

Representative Jennifer Stewart (Democrat, District 59, Pawtucket) introduced House Bill 7198, which would fully repeal the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights (LEOBOR). Representative Stewart was unable to attend the House Judiciary Committee hearing that took up her bill, but she had this statement read by Representative Cherie Cruz (Democrat, District 58, Pawtucket) and she sent her statement to me to be used as an oped.

---

Thank you, Chairman Craven, and members of the Judiciary Committee, for the opportunity to speak about House Bill 7198 which seeks the full repeal of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, popularly known as LEOBOR.

I want to be clear this repeal bill is not anti-law enforcement. As I shared last year, my father retired from the Chicago Police Department where he was an officer for over thirty years. I understand policing is a difficult job.

Instead, this repeal bill is pro-rule of law. It is a full embrace of the principle of the rule of law. Like the case for any principle, rule of law is all or nothing. One cannot support more rule of law under some circumstances and less under other circumstances. Where there is rule of law that nobody is above the law; all are subject equally to the law and there is transparency. Enacting rule of law helps to foster the public’s trust in institutions, especially those associated with the legal system.

LEOBOR violates the principle of rule of law. As noted in a statement supporting a 2020 Senate bill that authorized the creation of a legislative task force to review LEOBOR, the RI ACLU noted that LEOBOR “provides special layers of procedural protection that apply to no other government employees. Ironically, it also provides police officers facing internal disciplinary proceedings greater rights than those available to the criminal defendants arrested by these same officers.” That was true in 1976 when it was passed into law, it was true in 2020, and it’s true today in 2024.

During last year’s hearing, we heard from the Vincent family whose son Dominic was victimized by an out-of-control off-duty police officer. As you might remember, Dominic Vincent, an 18-year-old going out to get pizza, was shot by that officer as a punishment for speeding. In other words, he was shot for simply being a teenage boy. Last April, when the Vincents appeared here to provide testimony about their experience, the LEOBOR phase of their ordeal had not yet begun. Like most people, unless they experience police misconduct, the Vincents did not learn about LEOBOR’s existence until a month after the shooting of Dominic. It took nearly a couple of years for the criminal trial to play out. LEOBOR meant an additional eight months during which they were often left in the dark about what to expect and when to expect it. They were strung along as LEOBOR played out. It was eight months of dozens of phone calls and meetings for a hearing which, in their case, never happened. During that time, Dominic was even told he could be subpoenaed and treated as a hostile witness if he did not testify at the LEOBOR hearing. LEOBOR meant rescheduled appointments that gave no regard to their well-being or their time, and it was being told that their traumatized son would have to endure being in a room of cops and lawyers while he would not be afforded the ability to have support in the room with him whether it was his lawyer or his family. LEOBOR meant indifference to Dominic’s suffering and the emotional distress of his family.

The bottom line is that police are insiders to the criminal justice system and their “insiderness” is one of the things that make it difficult to hold them accountable for misconduct under the best of circumstances. Why would Rhode Island continue to have the additional, self-imposed hurdle of LEOBOR, in which people harmed by police are further disempowered and disadvantaged in a process that gives them no consideration?

Some have asked, “What would become of Rhode Island without LEOBOR?” “Wouldn’t 39 cities and towns have different procedures for police accountability?” “Isn’t Rhode Island too small for such variation?” “Worse yet, would we end up with LEOBOR negotiated into 39 union contracts?”

Currently, Rhode Island is the only New England state with LEOBOR. The majority of states in the United States do not have it. Somehow those states have been able to function and maintain police with standard due process. I trust that if New York or Massachusetts could figure it out, so could we. Maryland, the first state to implement LEOBOR, repealed it. If we could follow their example to pass it in the first place, we can follow their example to get rid of it. We can study efforts made by states and municipalities to provide greater police accountability and implement those measures.

I want to point out that reform will not address the fundamental problem that LEOBOR creates, namely that it sets apart a group of people for special treatment, subject to special rules that are opaque to the public. As long as Rhode Island continues to say that one group is entitled to a special set of rules, the state perpetuates inequality, abandons transparency, side-steps simplicity, and promotes distrust. It’s in all of our interests to repair that situation.

I hope we’ll have the courage to finally repeal LEOBOR just like Maryland did a couple of years ago. But we in Rhode Island can do this without responding to a tragedy like the brutal killing of Freddie Gray.

Thank you.