INTRODUCTION

The bill would modify licensure requirements for law enforcement officers. Before licensure, a prospective officer would have to complete a comprehensive background check to determine character fitness. An employing agency would have to consider an applicable separation of service record of a previously employed officer and attest to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) that the individual met licensing requirements. Additionally, MCOLES would have to research and establish curriculum standards for de-escalation techniques, implicit bias, procedural justice, crisis intervention, and behavioral health resources and support. New officers would have to complete the training as a condition of licensure and current officers would have to complete training in these areas by July 1, 2027. The bills would require MCOLES to develop a model duty to intervene policy, and law enforcement agencies would have to adopt and provide a copy of that policy or a similar policy to their employees. Finally, the bills would prescribe requirements of employing agencies to report information on officers who were the subject of certain criminal charges or protection orders to MCOLES. The Commission would have to revoke an officer's license if the officer were convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence for assault and battery against specific individuals.

PREVIOUS LEGISLATION

(This section does not provide a comprehensive account of previous legislative efforts on this subject matter.)

Senate Bills 334, 335, and 341 are similar reintroductions of Senate Bills 1092, 1093, and 1099, respectively, of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session. Senate Bill 1092 passed the Senate and was referred to the House Committee on Government Operations but received no further action. Senate Bills 1093 and 1099 were reported from the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety but received no further action.

BRIEF FISCAL IMPACT

Senate Bill 334 could result in additional costs for State and local law enforcement based upon the requirements for research and development into officer training standards, to adopt written policies on de-escalation techniques, and to require minimum hours of continuing education. Senate Bill 335 would have a negligible fiscal impact on State and local law enforcement agencies, requiring them to establish "duty to intervene" policies. Senate Bill 341 would have a moderate fiscal impact on State and local law enforcement agencies, requiring the amending of current licensing requirements and adding other license requirements and powers under MCOLES.

Proposed MCL 28.609f & 28.609g (S.B. 334) Legislative Analyst: Eleni Lionas

MCL 28.609 et al. (S.B. 341) Fiscal Analyst: Bruce R. Baker

CONTENT

Senate Bill 341 would amend the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act to do the following:

-- Require individuals licensed as law enforcement officers to undergo a comprehensive background investigation to determine character fitness, among other licensing requirements.

-- Require an employing agency to review an officer's separation of service record before executing an oath.

-- Require an employing agency to attest to MCOLES that an officer satisfied licensing requirements and include any documentation requested by MCOLES.

-- Allow MCOLES to grant a license to an individual upon determination that the individual could be brought into compliance with licensing standards through additional screening, procedures, examinations, testing or other means of verifying compliance provided that the individual agreed to comply with the additional means and voluntarily relinquish the license upon failure to comply.

-- Require a law enforcement agency to report to MCOLES if an officer in its employ were the subject of certain criminal charges, the imposition of a personal protective order, the imposition of an extreme risk protection order (ERPO), or a conviction prohibiting an individual from handling a firearm for three years.

-- Require an officer to report to MCOLES the imposition of a personal protective order or ERPO against the officer and a conviction prohibiting an individual from handling a firearm for three years.

-- Require a license to lapse if an officer did not comply with continuing education requirements promulgated by MCOLES.

-- Require MCOLES to revoke a license of an individual who was convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence for assault and battery against specific individuals, among other reasons for revocation.

-- Require MCOLES to develop a model duty to intervene policy.

Senate Bill 334 would amend the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Act to do the following:

-- Require MCOLES to research and establish curriculum standards for training in de-escalation techniques, implicit bias, procedural justice, crisis intervention, and behavioral health resources and support.

-- Beginning July 1, 2026, require an individual seeking to become licensed as a law enforcement officer, Tribal law enforcement officer, fire arson investigator, or private college security officer to complete the training.

-- By July 1, 2027, require already-licensed law enforcement officers to complete the training.

-- Prescribe continuing education requirements for the curriculum standards.

-- Require MCOLES to adopt a model policy for training standards and make the policy available within six months of the bill's effective date.

-- Require each law enforcement agency to adopt a written policy stating that each of its law enforcement officers would have to use de-escalation techniques to the extent reasonable and as safely as possible.

-- Require MCOLES to promulgate rules to ensure compliance with the bill.

Senate Bill 335 would enact the "Law Enforcement Officer Duty to Intervene Act" to require each law enforcement agency to adopt a duty to intervene policy and require agencies to provide a copy of the policy to their employees. The Act would prescribe minimum standards for the policy.

Senate Bills 334 and 335 are tie-barred to Senate Bill 341. Senate Bill 341 is tie-barred to Senate Bills 334 and 335.

Senate Bill 341

Law Enforcement Officer Licensure

Under the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act, the term "law enforcement officer" broadly refers to an individual employed by a law enforcement agency with the authority to prevent and detect crime and to enforce State laws. The term encompasses a range of positions, including the following:

-- State, Tribal, and legislative officers.

-- Specialized and local officers, such as conservation officers, township constables, marshals, park rangers, police officers, and officers appointed by certain local governments.

-- University and educational officers, including public safety officers employed by community colleges, universities, and certain authorized institutions.

-- Public transportation officers, such as transit and railroad police and airport security.

-- Certain investigators, including Medicaid fraud investigators, highway reciprocity board officers, fire arson investigators, and prosecuting attorneys' investigators.

Under the Act, certain individuals, although involved with security or enforcement, are not considered law enforcement officers under the definition, including citation issuers, Michigan Department of Agricultural and Rural Development personnel with limited peace officer authority, certain non-licensed or volunteer officers, railroad conductors, and other inspectors and agents with limited authority.

Licensing Standards

Generally, Sections 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d of the Act govern the licensure of the following categories of law enforcement officers, respectively: law enforcement officers except individuals to whom Sections 9a (appointed or elected sheriffs) through 9d apply; Michigan Tribal law enforcement officers authorized to enforce State law; fire arson investigators from fire departments within local units of government; and private college security officers. Employment of each category of law enforcement officer is subject to the licensing requirements and procedures of its respective section and Section 9e, which requires a law enforcement officer licensed under Section 9, 9b, 9c, or 9d to complete active violence response training. Under the bill, employment also would be subject to the requirements of Section 9f, which Senate Bill 334 would add.

In addition, Sections 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d require MCOLES to promulgate rules governing licensing standards and procedures pertaining to training requirements, among other things. The promulgated rules are subject to Section 9e, which requires MCOLES to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for active violence response training. Under the bill, rules promulgated for training requirements also would be subject to Section 9f under Senate Bill 334.

Also, MCOLES is required to promulgate rules governing licensing standards and procedures pertaining to training and eligibility requirements. The rules for a license issued under Sections 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d must include standards for character fitness as determined by a background investigation supported by a written authorization executed by the individual for whom licensure is sought. The bill would modify this requirement to specify that character fitness would have to be determined by a comprehensive background check supported by a waiver executed by the individual seeking licensure and would also be subject to Section 9f. The waiver and comprehensive background investigation would have to contain information required by MCOLES.

Currently, before executing the oath of office under Sections 9, 9b, and 9c, an employing law enforcement agency must verify that the individual to whom the oath applies complies with the licensing standards. The bill specifies that if an individual were currently a licensed officer, who was previously or were currently employed by another law enforcement agency, Tribal law enforcement agency, fire department, or private college, the subsequent employing agency's verification to the compliance of licensing standards could exclude the following:

-- Training requirements that were completed by the recognition of prior basic law enforcement training and experience or by completing certain pre-enrollment requirements.

-- Proficiency on a licensing examination.

-- Education.

-- Reading and writing proficiency.

-- Minimum age.

Additionally, before executing the oath of office under Sections 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d the agency would have to verify in writing that it had reviewed the law enforcement officer's separation of service record from a former law enforcement agency as required by the Law Enforcement Separation of Service Record Act, if applicable.¹

MCOLES Verification and Licensure

Within 10 days after executing an oath of office for an individual under Section 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d an employing law enforcement agency must attest in writing to MCOLES that the individual to whom the oath was administered satisfied the licensing standards by submitting an executed affidavit and a copy of the executed oath in office. The bill would delete the 10-day period to notify MCOLES and would require the employing agency to also include any other documents required by MCOLES.

If after reviewing the affidavit and oath of office, MCOLES determines that the individual complies with the licensing standards, MCOLES must grant the individual licensure. The bill would delete this provision. Instead, to grant licensure, upon receipt of the documents from an employing law enforcement agency MCOLES would have to review all documents and determine compliance with licensing standards. The bill would allow MCOLES to require the employing agency to provide physical or electronic copies of the comprehensive background check or any other documents considered necessary by MCOLES.

If MCOLES determines that the individual does not comply with the licensing standards, MCOLES may supervise the remediation of errors or omissions in the affidavit and oath to office or in the screening, procedures, examinations, testing, and other means used to verify compliance. The bill would also allow MCOLES to supervise the remediation of errors in the comprehensive background investigation.

Additionally, upon determination of noncompliance, MCOLES may supervise additional screening, procedures, examinations, testing, and other means used to determine compliance. The bill specifies that MCOLES could grant the individual a license if MCOLES determined that the individual could be brought into compliance with the licensing standards with additional screening, procedures, examinations, testing or other means of verifying compliance provided that the individual agreed to comply with the additional means to determine compliance and would voluntarily relinquish the license upon failure to comply with the additional means required of the individual.

Currently, an employing agency must promptly inform an individual if MCOLES has denied the officer's licensure.

Individuals who have been denied licensure cannot exercise law enforcement authority but are not divested of that authority until notification of the denial. The bill would delete this provision and specify that that an individual would not be licensed until MCOLES granted the license in accordance with the Act.

Law Enforcement Agency Duties

A law enforcement agency that has administered an oath under Section 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d must report to MCOLES all personnel transactions affecting employment status and any action taken by the employing agency that removes the authority conferred by the oath of office, or that restores the individual's authority to that conferred by the oath of office. In a manner as prescribed in rules promulgated in MCOLES, the agency would have to report all the following to MCOLES immediately upon being informed by an individual:

-- All criminal charges for offenses for which that individual's license could be revoked.

-- The imposition of a personal protection order against the individual under Sections 2950 or 2950a of the Revised Judicature Act, or under the laws of any other jurisdiction.²

-- The imposition of an ERPO under Section 7 of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, or the laws of any other state.³

-- A conviction that was subject to the restrictions described under Section 224f of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits an individual with a felony from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm for three years and provides a schedule of convictions and expiration dates of restrictions.

Individual Reporting

The Act requires a licensed individual to report certain information to MCOLES including criminal charges for offenses that could result in a license revocation and the imposition of a personal protective order after a judicial hearing under Sections 2950 and 2950a of the Revised Judicature Act, or any laws of another jurisdiction.

Under the bill, an individual licensed under Sections 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d also would have to report to MCOLES the following:

-- The imposition of a personal protection order against the individual under Sections 2950 or 2950a of the Revised Judicature Act, or under the laws of any other jurisdiction.

-- The imposition of an ERPO under Section 7 of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, or the laws of any other state.

-- A conviction that was subject to the restrictions described under Section 224f of the Michigan Penal Code.

The bill specifies that the notification would have to be made immediately upon being informed of the imposition of a charge, order, restriction, or filing of the order in a court of competent jurisdiction, whichever was applicable.

Inactive and Lapsed Licenses

A law enforcement license is rendered inactive if a law enforcement officer is employed for fewer than 2,080 hours and then isn’t employed or loses their authority for less than a year, or if the officer worked at least 2,080 hours and isn't employed or lose their authority for fewer than two years. A license lapses if a law enforcement officer works fewer than 2,080 hours and then is not employed or loses their authority for a year, or if they work at least 2,080 hours and then aren't employed or lose their authority for two years, without preventing future licensure. The bill also would allow a license for a law enforcement officer and a Tribal law enforcement officer to be rendered inactive or lapsed if the induvial failed to comply with the continuing professional education requirements prescribed by MCOLES and was notified in writing through the individuals employing agency by MCOLES of the inactivation or lapse.

A fire arson investigator's license and a private college security officer's license are considered lapsed if the individual is no longer employed or the individual is subject to a removal of authority. The bill would add that if the individual failed to comply with the continuing professional education requirements prescribed in rules by the MCOLES for one year after being notified by MCOLES through the individual's employing fire department or employer that the individual's license would be lapsed.

An employing law enforcement agency may reactivate an inactive license by complying with the licensure procedures prescribed under the Act, except for the required verification and attestation to compliance with licensing standards. The bill would add that the agency also would have to comply with the MCOLES procedures upon reviewal of licensing documentation proposed by the bill.

Revocation of a License

The Act prescribes the conditions under which MCOLES may revoke a license including if the individual made certain false statements or committed fraud, had been subjected to an adjudication of guilt for a violation of certain laws, such as possessing certain controlled substances and certain assault and battery charges, among other things.

Under the bill, MCOLES would have to revoke a license granted under Sections 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d if the individual was convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence and was subject to the restrictions under Section 224f(5) of the Penal Code, which prescribes a felony punishable up to five years' imprisonment and a maximum fine of $5,000, or both for assault and battery of an individual the person has an intimate relationship with or against a pregnant individual, and who has more previous convictions for assault and battery of those categories of individuals.

The bill would allow MCOLES to revoke a license for any of the following circumstances:

-- The individual's license was granted under the Act based on MCOLES' determination that the individual could be brought into compliance with the licensing standards with additional screening, procedures, examinations, testing, or other means of verifying compliance with the licensing standards and the individual failed to comply with the means of verifying compliance with the imposed licensing standards.

-- The individual was not eligible to possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm or ammunition under State or Federal laws.

Additionally, MCOLES could revoke a license if an individual was a law enforcement officer with an active license at another law enforcement agency and the following applied:

-- The subsequent employing law enforcement agency requested the activation of the individual's license under the Act.

-- The Commission determined that the individual did not meet the licensing standards and denied the request of the subsequent employing law enforcement agency to activate the individual's law enforcement officer license.

The Commission also could revoke a license if the license was activated by MCOLES in accordance with the Act within 90 days of MCOLES's initiation of a revocation proceeding and the following applied:

-- The Commission determined that the individual's license was activated in error, including an erroneous activation before MCOLES issued a final order determining whether the individual complied with the licensing standards.

-- The Commission determined that the individual did not comply with the licensing standards and would have denied activation of the individual's license under this Act but for the error.

The bill would require MCOLES to promulgate rules governing the revocations described above.

Licensure Authority

Currently, an individual licensed under Section 9, 9b, 9c, and 9d must not exercise law enforcement authority if the individual's license is rendered void by court order, is revoked, rendered inactive, or rendered lapsed. The bill would delete this provision and specify that only an individual with an active license could exercise law enforcement authority.

MCOLES Duties

The Act allows MCOLES to cooperate with State, Federal, and local agencies to approve in-service programs and training of law enforcement officers and to promulgate rules about the in-service training and minimum courses of study. The bill would modify this provision to instead allow MCOLES to approve and promulgate rules on continuing professional education.

Additionally, the bill would require MCOLES to develop a model duty to intervene policy.

Senate Bill 334

The bill would add Section 9f, and beginning July 1, 2026, an individual who was seeking to become licensed as a law enforcement officer under section 9, 9b, 9c, or 9d would have to complete training that met the standards described below. A law enforcement officer who was licensed under section 9, 9b, 9c, or 9d on July 1, 2026, and who had not previously completed the training would have to complete training that met the standards by July 1, 2027.

By October 1, 2025, MCOLES would have to conduct or contract for research and analysis to identify training gaps and begin to adapt, adopt, or develop curriculum standards for training in the following areas or other areas MCOLES determined to be substantially similar:

-- De-escalation techniques, which would mean a method or methods intended to defuse a potentially volatile or violent situation with the goal to reduce the level of subject control required to resolve the situation in an objectively reasonable and safe manner.

-- Implicit bias training, which would mean evidence-based training that provides instruction regarding the bias implicit in all human beings and how to help ensure subconscious bias does not inhibit fair and impartial law enforcement.

-- Procedural justice training, which would mean training based on the principles of treating people with dignity and respect, giving citizens a voice during encounters, being neutral in decision making, and conveying trustworthy motives while emphasizing law enforcement's role in the context of the larger criminal justice system.

-- Behavioral health resources and support available for law enforcement officers.

-- Crisis intervention techniques, which would mean a method of immediate response to an individual or a situation involving an individual experiencing a crisis that included mental disability, mental health disorder, substance use disorder, or acute emotional distress.

"Training gap" would mean identified behavioral or performance deficiencies caused by a lack of skill or knowledge. "Curriculum" would mean a structure of educational standards that identifies behavioral objectives and outcomes. "Behavioral health" would mean the treatment of a mental disability, mental health disorder, or substance use disorder, and the support of an individual who experiences or is in recovery from a mental disability, mental health disorder, or substance use disorder.

Between July 1, 2027, and July 1, 2028, a law enforcement officer licensed under the Act would have to complete at least 12 hours of continuing education in the areas described above. After July 1, 2028, a law enforcement officer licensed under the Act would have to annually complete at least 24 hours of continuing education in these areas every two years.

The bill specifies that an individual seeking to become a law enforcement officer license under the Act or a law enforcement officer who was already licensed could meet the standards for implicit bias training by completing an implicit bias training course approved by MCOLES.

Additionally, the curriculum standards for training on de-escalation techniques would have to include all the following:

-- The employment of verbal and physical tactics to defuse volatile or potentially violent situations, including when the use of the tactics were safe and feasible, with an emphasis on using communication, negotiation, and de-escalation techniques.

-- The level of force that was an objectively reasonable response to an identified and articulable threat or resistance that was based on information available at the time of the incident and that required constant reevaluation as circumstances dictated and allowed.

-- Training that provided law enforcement officers with awareness and recognition of indicators of physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, other mental health disorders, and substance use disorders with an emphasis on effective communication and de-escalation techniques.

-- As appropriate with the nature and immediacy of the threat to public safety, the use of distance, cover, and time when approaching and managing critical incidents, to help create a safety zone between the law enforcement officer and subject to afford the law enforcement officer more time to react to the circumstances.

-- A law enforcement officer's responsibility to intervene in a situation if another law enforcement officer's actions indicated that the other law enforcement officer had lost self-control or use of force was not objectively reasonable to the level of resistance encountered.

-- Methods to divert individuals with intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, mental health disorders, or substance use disorders from involvement in the criminal justice system.

-- Information about the State's behavioral health system, including its history and resources.

-- Other evidence-based approaches found to be appropriate by MCOLES that enhanced de-escalation techniques and skills.

Within six months of the bill's effective date, each law enforcement agency in the State would have to adopt a written policy that stated that each of the law enforcement officers in its employ would have to use de-escalation techniques in the law enforcement officer's interactions with citizens to the extent that was reasonable and as safe as possible. The bill would require MCOLES to make a model written policy available on its website. A law enforcement agency could fulfill its duty to adopt a written policy within six months of the bill's effective date by adopting the MCOLES model written policy.

Additionally, MCOLES would have to promulgate rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act to ensure compliance, including a tiered system of license sanctions up to license revocation for a law enforcement officer licensed under section 9, 9b, 9c, or 9d who refused to comply with the training requirements. The rules promulgated by MCOLES pertaining to the revocation of a license would have to incorporate the requirements and procedures in the same manner as applicable to that type of law enforcement officer

Senate Bill 335

"Law enforcement agency" would mean an entity that is established and maintained in accordance with State law and is authorized by the State to appoint or employ law enforcement officers. The term would include a public body corporate that satisfied the following conditions:

-- Was established and maintained as a separate legal entity pursuant to an interlocal agreement under the Urban Cooperation Act between a city that was authorized by State law to appoint or employ law enforcement officers and an authority under the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act.⁴

-- Was authorized by State law to appoint or employ law enforcement officers.

"Officer" would mean that term as defined in the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Act (see BACKGROUND).

Within 12 months after the Act's effective date, each law enforcement agency in the State would have to adopt a written duty to intervene policy that required an officer to act to end or prevent the use or further use of objectively unreasonable force by another officer and report that officer's observations to an immediate supervisor.

Each law enforcement agency would have to provide a copy of its policy to the law enforcement officers it employed and indicate that a policy violation would be grounds for disciplinary action. The bill specifies that a law enforcement agency could adopt the model duty to intervene policy created by MCOLES under Senate Bill 341.

Additionally, the Act would not prohibit a law enforcement agency from adopting a policy that exceeded the Act's requirements or that added additional requirements.

BACKGROUND

-- State, Tribal, and Legislative officers.

-- Specialized and local officers, such as conservation officers, township constables, marshals, park rangers, police officers, and officers appointed by certain local governments.

-- University and educational officers, including public safety officers employed by community colleges, universities, and certain authorized institutions.

-- Public transportation officers, such as transit and railroad police and airport security.

-- Certain investigators, including Medicaid fraud investigators, highway reciprocity board officers, fire arson investigators, and prosecuting attorney's investigators.

FISCAL IMPACT

Senate Bill 334's provisions could result in additional training costs at an amount difficult to determine at this time for State and local law enforcement. The bill would require that by October 2025, MCOLES must research and identify any gaps in officer training and develop training standards and curriculum for those training gaps, including training in de-escalation techniques, implicit bias, procedural justice, behavioral health resources and support available, and crisis intervention techniques. All licensed officers would have to meet those standards as developed and approved by MCOLES, by July 1, 2027. The bill also would require MCOLES and local and State law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy that each law enforcement officer would have to use as de-escalation techniques. Potential costs associated with the bill's provisions would be mostly found in its requirement that licensed law enforcement officers complete at least 12 hours of continuing education in the identified subjects prior to July 1, 2028, and the requirement that beginning July 1, 2028, all 18,600 licensed law enforcement officers in the State complete at least 24 hours every two years of continuing education related to those subjects. The bill also would require MCOLES to promulgate rules to implement its provisions. For most of the State’s 573 law enforcement agencies, there could be costs related in complying with the bill’s requirements, including costs related to filling positions that could be temporarily vacated due to employee training requirements. While there is no appropriation attached to the bill, MCOLES already addresses training needs in the training subjects required under the bill, though perhaps not to the precise extent and time frame the bill would require. In-service training, Continuing Professional Education (CPE), has also been established and is being administered by MCOLES. This effort received a $20.0 million General Fund/General Purpose (GF/GP) one-time start-up funding under supplemental appropriations from Public Act 1 of 2023. Subsequently, $18.3 million GF/GP under Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24, FY 2024-25, and under Senate passed SB 176 (appropriations for FY 2025-6), annual appropriations has been appropriated for this purpose, and MCOLES is also operating a CPE pilot program based upon research and law

[1] Separation of service records must include the reasons and circumstances surrounding a law enforcement officer's separation of service.

[2] Sections 2950 and 2950a of the Revised Judicature Act govern intimate relationship and sexual assault restraining orders, respectively.

[3] Section 7 of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act prescribes the process to issue an extreme risk protection order for an individual who could be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual by possessing a firearm, and has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

[4] Generally, the Urban Cooperation Act and the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act govern standards for agreements between interlocal public agencies and govern metropolitan transportation authorities, respectively.