The bill adds a new criminal offense to 18 U.S.C. § 40B that covers operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border while intentionally fleeing a pursuing federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, including a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent acting under lawful authority. It establishes a tiered penalty structure tied to outcomes, with up to 2 years in prison for a standard evasion, 5-20 years for serious bodily injury, and 10 years to life for death.
The bill also expands immigration consequences by making aliens convicted of, or admitting acts constituting, the elements of §40B(a) inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible for relief. Finally, it requires an annual reporting obligation by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security on enforcement activity and penalties.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new offense of evading arrest or detention while operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the border, with escalating penalties based on harm caused. It also adds immigration consequences for aliens linked to the offense and requires an annual enforcement report.
Who It Affects
Federal, state, and local enforcement officers who pursue suspects; individuals who evade law enforcement near the border; immigration authorities and affected immigrant communities.
Why It Matters
Establishes a clear, enforceable framework for evasion cases near the border, aligns criminal penalties with safety risks, and expands immigration consequences to deter evasion that endangers officers and the public.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a dedicated federal offense for fleeing law enforcement while driving within 100 miles of the border. The act covers evasion from Border Patrol agents and other pursuing officers who are acting under lawful authority.
The offense carries a baseline penalty of up to two years in prison, with higher penalties if serious injury or death results. The intent is to reflect the heightened risk of pursuits in border areas and to deter dangerous evasion.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new federal offense for evading arrest while driving near the border.
Penalties scale from up to 2 years for common evasion to up to life for outcomes like death.
Aliens convicted of or admitting acts that constitute the offense become inadmissible and deportable, with no relief under immigration laws.
The bill adds 18 U.S.C. §40B and amends related immigration provisions to support enforcement.
An annual Attorney General/DHS report will track counts, charges, apprehensions, and penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section names the act as the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act. It is largely ceremonial but sets the bill’s formal designation for reference in enforcement and litigation.
Criminal penalties for evading arrest or detention
This section creates a new criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 40B for operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border while intentionally fleeing a pursuing federal, state, or local officer who is actively assisting or under the command of U.S. Border Patrol. The baseline penalty is imprisonment for up to 2 years, with fines as authorized by law. If serious bodily injury results, the offense carries a sentence of 5 to 20 years; if death results, the sentence ranges from 10 years to life. The section also adds the new offense to the chapter 2 analysis at the end of the title.
Inadmissibility, deportability, and ineligibility related to evading arrest
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make aliens convicted of, admitting, or admitting acts that constitute the essential elements of §40B(a) inadmissible and deportable. It also inserts a new subsection establishing ineligibility for relief related to evading arrest, including asylum, under the immigration laws.
Annual report
The Attorney General, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security, must annually report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on the number of §40B violations, charges brought, individuals apprehended, those not charged, the penalties sought and imposed, and related outcomes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Border Patrol and other pursuing law enforcement officers gain from a clearer, enforceable framework and potential deterrence of dangerous evasion.
- Federal prosecutors and enforcement agencies benefit from a defined offense and sentencing structure that supports charging decisions.
- Border-area law enforcement and communities may see enhanced public safety and accountability for evading pursuit.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals who engage in evading arrest face potential imprisonment and fines.
- Immigration courts and agencies may incur costs related to inadmissibility, deportability determinations, and relief denial proceedings.
- Enforcement agencies may require resources to investigate and prosecute evading-arrest cases and to compile annual enforcement reports.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the need to deter and penalize dangerous evasion near the border with the potential for over-criminalization and unintended immigration consequences that affect non-citizens and resource-strapped agencies.
The bill tightly targets high-risk evasion near the border, but it raises several questions. First, the 100-mile window captures a large jurisdictional area where evasion could occur, which may complicate evidentiary standards and jurisdictional attribution.
Second, coupling a new criminal offense with immigration penalties creates a dual-track punishment—criminal punishment plus immigration consequences—that can magnify the stakes for defendants, including non-citizens, and raise due process considerations in charging and adjudication. Third, the reliance on annual reporting shifts some administrative burden to agencies that already operate under tight resources, and the specificity of reporting metrics will affect how agencies allocate enforcement efforts.
Finally, the new framework could interact with other border-security or immigration regimes in uncertain ways, requiring careful interagency coordination and potential future refinements as experience accrues.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.