“If it weren’t for the last minute, nothing would get done.” – Rita Mae Brown

It only began about three-and-a-half months ago, but this year’s state legislative session drew to a close last Wednesday.

The session almost ended without passing one of the bills declared as a priority for Gov. Kay Ivey and the leaders of both chambers of the Alabama Legislature.

House Bill 202 picked up the nickname of the “back the blue bill” as it was designed to enhance qualified immunity protections for state and local law enforcement officers. Legislators remained at the State House deep into the night of this year’s final meeting to push the bill through.

Before looking at the bill, let’s talk about qualified immunity. This term means government officials are provided some protection both from being prosecuted as criminals and from being sued as individuals for actions they perform as part of their job.

For example, you cannot sue your congressman for voting to raise your income tax or have your revenue commissioner arrested if she raises the value of your property after you add a bedroom to your house even if these actions cause you financial distress by making you pay more in taxes.

Maybe a more realistic example is you cannot sue the Alabama Public Safety Department if a clerk will not provide you a new STAR ID because you bring the wrong documents required by law to be issued one.

However, qualified immunity does not protect government officials in situations where they clearly are not following the law, are taking actions out of line with training they have received and the rules established by the agency for which they work, or are using their authority unfairly to benefit or harm an individual or a group of people.

Where you most often hear the term brought up is in the area of law enforcement. Police officers, sheriff’s deputies and corrections officers are often placed in high-stress situations where quick decisions have to be made.

No two circumstances are exactly the same, so law enforcement officers must act based on their knowledge, training and experience.

These difficult conditions increase the chances for an officer to make a wrong decision that could have a negative effect on a person or people as compared to many other government jobs where environments are more stable and more time can be spent making a tough decision about how the rules should apply.

The main parts of HB 202 provide state judges an extra opportunity to dismiss a criminal charge against a law enforcement officer involving the use of force before a jury trial begins.

Additionally, the law stops the gathering of certain types of evidence in a civil lawsuit against an officer until a state judge decides if the merits of the lawsuit meet the specific conditions where an officer’s actions do not qualify for immunity protections.

Should a judge rule there is enough evidence to go forward with either a criminal or civil trial, the accused officer can still appeal that decision to a higher state court before the jury trial for that officer can begin.

I struggle to see why this law was needed. First, I find it unlikely there are district attorneys in this state who are eager to prosecute the law enforcement officers with whom they work on a charge of using excessive force without having sufficient evidence.

Second, concerning civil lawsuits against officers, judges already have the power to dismiss cases when it is obvious there is not enough evidence to sustain the claims.

I fear the main effect of this law will be delayed justice and wasted resources due to the addition of another layer in an already slow-moving legal process. The vast majority of cops are doing the right thing. This law hinders delivering consequences to the few bad or incompetent ones.

Moreover, the Legislature cannot make any laws dealing with prosecutions or lawsuits filed in federal courts – which is often where these types of cases end up. An alleged violation by a government official of a person’s rights and liberties provided by the U.S. Constitution is decided in a federal court.

An AP report on the new law quotes a civil rights attorney saying, “It is a lion with no teeth. It appears to be big and bad, but it has no teeth and no claws.”

While I think this law was well-intentioned, legislators would have been better served by adjourning early and getting their beauty sleep instead of staying up late to pass this bill.