Cost of Police Misconduct Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a comprehensive national reporting system for law enforcement misconduct judgments and settlements, aiming to increase transparency, identify patterns, and inform policy to reduce misconduct.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies collect and report detailed information to the Attorney General regarding judgments and settlements related to allegations of officer misconduct. It specifies the types of data to be collected, including officer and civilian demographics (if known), nature of the allegation, personnel actions taken, and the financial costs and sources of payments for settlements. State and local agencies receiving federal funds (Byrne JAG, Cops on the Beat) face potential funding reductions for non-compliance. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct studies and publish reports based on this data, and for the DOJ to create a public, searchable database of the collected information.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly enhance transparency and accountability within law enforcement by creating a centralized, public database of misconduct allegations and their financial resolutions. They contend that understanding the true 'cost of police misconduct'—both human and financial—is crucial for identifying systemic issues, fostering public trust, and developing effective strategies to prevent future incidents. Proponents believe that the data collected will provide valuable insights for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and civil rights organizations to implement best practices and promote equitable enforcement of the law.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while transparency is important, the extensive data collection requirements could be overly burdensome for smaller law enforcement agencies, potentially diverting resources from essential policing functions. Some may also raise concerns about the potential for public misinterpretation of raw data, arguing that allegations and settlements do not always equate to proven misconduct, and that publishing such data could unfairly tarnish the reputations of officers or agencies without full context. There could also be concerns about privacy, despite the bill's explicit mention of not including personally identifiable information of officers in the public database.
The bill is straightforward and can be read and understood within the given timeframe, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of its provisions.
Section 2(c)
Federal Agency Misconduct Data Collection
This provision requires all Federal law enforcement agencies to collect detailed information on any judgments or settlements resulting from allegations of officer misconduct. This data includes the number of cases, demographics of those involved (if known), type of misconduct alleged (e.g., use of force, racial profiling), personnel actions taken, and the financial cost and source of payment for each settlement or judgment. Agencies must report this data annually to the Attorney General.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring Federal agencies to systematically track and report misconduct data is a critical step towards greater accountability and building public trust. This data will allow for a clearer understanding of patterns and trends in misconduct, enabling targeted reforms and better oversight.
Critics contend
Some might argue that the data collection could be resource-intensive for Federal agencies, potentially diverting funds and personnel from core law enforcement duties. There could also be concerns about the potential for data to be misinterpreted or used to unfairly characterize agencies or officers.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for transparency and accountability with the administrative burden on federal agencies and potential concerns about data interpretation.
Section 2(d)
State and Local Misconduct Data and Funding Penalties
This provision requires State and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funds through the Byrne JAG or "Cops on the Beat" programs to collect and report "substantially similar" misconduct data as federal agencies. It also mandates specific disclosures about the source of settlement payments (e.g., general budget, insurance, bonds) and amounts spent on insurance premiums or risk management funds. Crucially, non-compliant agencies face a reduction of up to 10% in their federal funding from these programs, with withheld funds reallocated to compliant jurisdictions. States and local governments must also publish this information on their websites.
Section 2(e)
Public Database and Analytical Reports
This provision mandates the Attorney General to create and maintain a public, searchable database on the Department of Justice website containing all collected misconduct data from Federal, State, and local agencies, updated annually. It explicitly states that personally identifiable information of officers will not be included. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to conduct a study after two years of data collection, analyzing trends, causes of misconduct, and making recommendations. The DOJ will also issue annual reports with recommendations for use of force and best practices, developed in consultation with law enforcement and civil rights organizations.