Under Color of Law Accountability Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance federal accountability for law enforcement misconduct by establishing clear criminal penalties for specific actions including excessive force, theft, and obstruction of justice, thereby expanding federal oversight of police conduct.
What it actually does
This bill creates new federal criminal offenses in Title 18 of the United States Code for law enforcement officers and other persons acting under color of law who engage in excessive force, theft of money or property, or obstruction of justice. It establishes specific definitions for these offenses, including nuanced criteria for 'excessive force,' and sets penalties that can include significant imprisonment, with enhanced sentences for offenses resulting in death or involving kidnapping. The bill also includes a duty for officers to intervene in instances of excessive force and sets a 7-year statute of limitations for most offenses, with no limit for death-resulting cases.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for addressing police misconduct and restoring public trust in law enforcement. They contend that existing laws are insufficient to hold officers accountable for abuses of power, and that establishing clear federal criminal statutes will deter misconduct, provide a more robust mechanism for justice for victims, and foster a culture of accountability within law enforcement agencies.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill federalizes crimes traditionally handled at the state level, potentially overreaching federal authority and duplicating existing laws. They may also contend that the definitions of 'excessive force' and 'obstruction' could be overly broad or create a chilling effect on legitimate law enforcement activities, making officers hesitant to act decisively in high-stress situations for fear of prosecution.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing for a thorough reading and understanding of its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe for an informed reader.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1641
Criminalizing Excessive Force by Persons Acting Under Color of Law
This provision makes it a federal crime for any person acting under color of law to intentionally use force against another that causes bodily injury, if they know the force is excessive or consciously disregard a substantial risk that it is. Penalties range up to 10 years imprisonment, or up to 30 years if the offense involves kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, an attempt to kill, or results in death. It also criminalizes conspiracy and solicitation of such offenses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a critical gap in accountability, ensuring that officers who knowingly use excessive force face significant federal penalties, thereby deterring misconduct and protecting civil liberties.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that existing state laws and civil remedies are sufficient, and that this federal expansion could lead to over-prosecution or make officers hesitant to use necessary force in dangerous situations, potentially endangering themselves and the public.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for police accountability and protection of civil rights with concerns about potential federal overreach and the operational realities faced by law enforcement in high-stress situations.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1641(c)
Criminalizing Failure to Intervene in Excessive Force Incidents
This subsection makes it a federal crime for any person acting under color of law who has the duty, opportunity, and ability to intervene, to deliberately choose not to take reasonable steps to stop or prevent a use of excessive force, knowing that the force is excessive. The penalties are the same as those prescribed for the excessive force offense itself, but it explicitly exempts those who take reasonable steps, regardless of success.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1642
Prohibiting Theft by Persons Acting Under Color of Law
This provision makes it unlawful for any person acting under color of law to knowingly convert to their personal use (or another's) any money, personal property valued over $25, or any controlled substance or contraband obtained from individuals in custody, correctional facilities, law enforcement agencies, or during searches of property. It also covers taking such items with the intent to convert them, knowing there is no legal right to do so. Penalties vary based on value, up to 10 years imprisonment for items over $1,000. It explicitly excludes items taken for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1643
Prohibiting Obstruction of Justice by Persons Acting Under Color of Law
This provision makes it unlawful for any person acting under color of law to knowingly obstruct justice with the intent to cover up a color-of-law offense or a violation of constitutional/federal rights. This includes destroying recordings or evidence, using force or threats to interfere with a person recording law enforcement activity (in public or private settings with permission), or using intimidation or misleading conduct to cause others to destroy recordings or provide false information. Penalties range up to 20 years imprisonment, or 30 years if death results. It includes rules of construction to protect legitimate law enforcement activities.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1644
Statute of Limitations for Color-of-Law Offenses
This section establishes a 7-year statute of limitations for most offenses under the new chapter (excessive force, theft, obstruction), meaning an indictment must be found within 7 years of the offense's completion. However, for offenses that result in death, there is no time limitation for indictment or information, allowing for prosecution at any time.
This section provides a detailed definition of 'excessive force,' distinguishing between force used against incarcerated persons ('unnecessary and wanton') and force used in any other case ('objectively unreasonable'). It further defines 'wanton use of force' and 'objectively unreasonable force,' and provides specific criteria for when 'deadly force' is considered reasonable, emphasizing imminent threat or preventing escape of a dangerous suspect.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1645(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions, but the specific legal tests embedded within it are highly consequential for how the law will be applied and interpreted.
Case for: Proponents argue these precise definitions provide clear legal standards for both officers and prosecutors, reducing ambiguity and ensuring that only truly excessive force is prosecuted while protecting officers who act reasonably and in good faith.
Case against: Opponents might argue that even with definitions, the 'objectively unreasonable' standard can be subjective in practice, and the distinction between incarcerated and non-incarcerated individuals could lead to disparate application or confusion in complex legal scenarios.
Estimated impact: This definition will serve as the primary legal standard for all excessive force prosecutions under this new chapter, directly influencing the outcome of cases, guiding law enforcement training, and shaping the conduct of officers nationwide.
This section broadly defines the term 'under the color of law' to include actions taken under the color of any Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, commonwealth, possession, or district law, which encompasses any statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom thereof.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1645(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope and applicability of a new legal chapter.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition ensures comprehensive coverage of all law enforcement and government actors, regardless of their specific jurisdiction, preventing loopholes and ensuring consistent application of federal accountability standards across the nation.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this standard definition, as it aligns with existing federal civil rights statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1983) and is a well-established legal concept for federal oversight of state and local actors.
Estimated impact: This definition ensures that the new federal crimes apply to a wide range of government officials across various levels of government, significantly expanding federal jurisdiction over such offenses and ensuring broad accountability.