Missouri House Bill HB2506

Missouri 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/24
• Refer: 5/17/24

Caption

Prohibits carotid restraints, except under certain circumstances, and provides for peace officer dismissal and license revocation based on improper use of choke-holds and carotid restraints

Impact

The introduction of HB 2506 represents a substantial shift in state law regarding law enforcement use of force. By limiting the circumstances under which carotid restraints and choke-holds can be utilized, this bill significantly reduces the potential for excessive force incidents that have garnered national attention and criticism. The repercussions of this law could lead to increased training and alterations in tactical approaches used by officers, as they navigate the balance between ensuring public safety and adhering to legal constraints. Furthermore, any misuse of these techniques could lead to immediate dismissal and loss of licensing for officers, reinforcing a zero-tolerance policy on excessive force.

Summary

House Bill 2506 seeks to amend existing laws concerning the use of force by law enforcement officers in the state of Missouri. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of carotid restraints and respiratory choke-holds except in situations where the life of the officer or another individual is at risk of serious physical injury or death. This significant legislative change responds to growing concerns regarding police practices and aims to enhance accountability within law enforcement agencies. The bill emphasizes a clear standard for legitimate use of force, potentially transforming how officers approach difficult encounters with suspects.

Contention

While proponents of HB 2506 argue that it will enhance accountability and protect community members from potential abuses, there are notable points of contention surrounding the bill. Critics express concerns that the restrictions may hinder law enforcement's ability to act decisively in high-stakes situations, potentially endangering officers and the public alike. Debates surrounding the bill highlight the ongoing tension between advocating for civil rights and ensuring public safety, as various stakeholders voice their opinions on the implications of altering use-of-force policies.