This bill inserts a new Chapter 80 into Title 18 of the U.S. Code and establishes three core federal offenses for persons acting under color of law: (1) excessive force (including a firearm-specific attempt clause and a distinct failure-to-intervene offense), (2) theft or conversion of money/property/controlled substances/contraband taken in custody or during searches, and (3) obstruction aimed at concealing color-of-law violations—including destroying or preventing recording devices and evidence. The chapter also defines key terms (including differing standards for incarcerated people versus others), sets tiered criminal penalties, and creates a seven-year statute of limitations for most offenses (unlimited for death-resulting conduct).
Professionals should pay attention because the bill creates standalone federal tools beyond 18 U.S.C. § 242: it sets specific mental-state formulations (knowing or conscious disregard), criminalizes failure-to-intervene, explicitly protects third‑party recordings, and authorizes substantial federal prison terms. That combination will affect federal prosecutions, local agency policies, training and evidence-retention practices, and defense/complaint strategy in civil and criminal settings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Chapter 80 (sections 1641–1645) to Title 18 creating offenses for excessive force, theft by government actors, and obstruction of evidence or recordings committed while acting under color of law. It specifies culpable mental states (knowledge or conscious disregard), includes conspiracy and solicitation provisions, and sets penalties up to 30 years where death results.
Who It Affects
State, local, tribal, and federal law enforcement officers and corrections staff; prosecutors and defense counsel handling color-of-law matters; law enforcement agencies responsible for policy, training, and evidence retention; victims, bystanders, and journalists who record police activity.
Why It Matters
The bill provides prosecutors a clear, standalone set of federal offenses tailored to policing conduct rather than relying solely on broader civil-rights statutes. It tightens definitions of excessive force (different standards for incarcerated persons), criminalizes non-intervention and active concealment of evidence, and sets explicit limitations and penalties—altering enforcement incentives and agency compliance obligations.
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 new chapter in the federal criminal code that targets misconduct by anyone acting under color of law at any level of government. For excessive force, it does not simply replicate § 242; instead it makes it a crime to cause bodily injury by force when the actor either knows the force is excessive or consciously disregards a substantial risk that it is excessive.
The statute also addresses firearms separately (criminalizing attempted death or serious injury by gun when such force would be excessive) and makes conspiring or soliciting another to use excessive force punishable as the completed offense.
A distinct failure-to-intervene offense applies when a person acting under color of law had the duty, opportunity, and ability to stop excessive force but deliberately chose not to; that failure carries the same penalties as the underlying excessive-force offense. The bill defines excessive force differently depending on whether the subject is incarcerated (wanton and unnecessary) or not (an objectively unreasonable force standard), and it specifies when deadly force is reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.On theft, the bill bars conversion of money, property (threshold $25), controlled substances, or contraband taken from people in custody, from facilities, or during searches or entries procured by misrepresenting authority.
Penalties are tiered: higher sentences when the value exceeds $1,000 (up to 10 years) or $500 (up to 5 years), with baseline penalties for lower-value conduct. The statute exempts legitimate law-enforcement seizures (evidence, forfeiture) and defines “custody or control” to include Fourth Amendment seizures.The obstruction provision targets acts meant to conceal color-of-law violations or violations of constitutional rights.
It criminalizes destroying or rendering unavailable recording devices or recordings, using force or threats to stop lawful recording of police activity, abusing arrest powers to prevent recording, and persuading others to destroy or lie about recordings. The provision includes specific exceptions (internal briefings, undercover operations, and reasonable safety-based public recording regulations) but also lowers the Government’s proof burden by not requiring proof that the defendant knew an investigation was federal or that a particular federal law was implicated.Finally, the bill sets a seven‑year statute of limitations for most offenses in the chapter and permits prosecution at any time when the offense resulted in death.
The definitions section supplies statutory meanings for bodily injury, controlled substances, excessive force (with subparts on wanton and objectively unreasonable conduct), and explains that “under color of law” covers federal, state, tribal, territorial, commonwealth, possession, and district authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1641 makes excessive force a federal crime when an actor ‘knows’ the force is excessive or ‘consciously disregards’ a substantial risk that it is, and adds a firearm-specific attempt clause.
The bill criminalizes failure to intervene when an actor had the duty, opportunity, and ability to stop excessive force, carrying the same penalties as the substantive excessive-force offense.
Section 1642 criminalizes conversion of money, property (threshold $25), controlled substances, or contraband taken from people in custody or during searches—penalties tiered at >$500 and >$1,000 value levels (up to 5 or 10 years respectively).
Section 1643 criminalizes deliberate actions to destroy or prevent recording devices or recordings of law enforcement activity and prohibits using arrest, force, or intimidation to stop lawful recording; defendants need not know an investigation is federal.
Most offenses carry a 7‑year statute of limitations, but any offense under sections 1641–1643 that results in death has no time limit for prosecution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Excessive-force offenses, firearm attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, and failure to intervene
This section defines the core excessive-force crime with two mental-state routes: actual knowledge that force is excessive, or conscious disregard of a substantial risk that it is. It includes separate language criminalizing attempted death or injury via firearm when the act would be excessive, treats conspiracies like completed offenses, and makes solicitation punishable without requiring proof the solicited crime was attempted or completed. The failure-to-intervene clause criminalizes inaction when an actor had duty, opportunity, and ability to stop excessive force—importantly, the bill equates that failure with the same penalties as active perpetrators.
Theft and conversion by government actors
Section 1642 targets conversion of money, personal property (a $25 initial threshold), controlled substances, or contraband taken from persons in custody, facilities, or during searches—especially where entry or consent was gained through misuse of official authority. Penalties are tiered by value: higher terms for thefts over $1,000, intermediate terms for thefts over $500, and base penalties otherwise. The provision excludes legitimate law-enforcement seizures (evidence or forfeiture) and specifies that being subject to a Fourth Amendment seizure counts as being in custody for purposes of the statute.
Obstruction for concealing color-of-law violations and preventing recordings
This section criminalizes knowing acts intended to conceal color-of-law wrongdoing or violations of constitutional rights, with explicit prohibitions on destroying or corrupting recording devices or recordings, using force or threats to stop lawful recordings in public or privately permitted settings, abusing arrest authority to block recording, and persuading others to falsify or destroy evidence. It contains carve-outs for internal briefings, undercover work, victim interviews, and reasonable safety-based rules for public recording, but otherwise creates heavy penalties (up to 20 years; 30 if death results).
Statute of limitations
The bill establishes a 7‑year statute of limitations for offenses in this chapter, but removes any time limit when the alleged misconduct resulted in death. The extended window for non-death offenses is longer than many federal property or fraud statutes and will affect preservation, investigation timelines, and charging decisions.
Definitions and standards for excessive force and 'under color of law'
Definitions set the operational terms used throughout the chapter: bodily injury adopts the §1365(h) definition (excluding purely emotional harm), controlled substance borrows from the CSA, and 'excessive force' has two different tests—wanton/unnecessary for incarcerated persons and an objective-reasonableness test for others. The provision also explains when deadly force is reasonable from the viewpoint of a reasonable officer on scene, and clarifies that 'under color of law' includes all levels of government and their statutes, ordinances, regulations, and customs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- People who suffer police violence and their families: the statute creates new federal criminal pathways tailored to policing conduct (including failure-to-intervene and obstruction), giving victims additional avenues for federal prosecution where state remedies are unavailable or unpursued.
- Bystanders, journalists, and civilians who record police activity: the obstruction offense specifically protects lawful recording and criminalizes using force, arrest, or intimidation to prevent or erase recordings.
- Prosecutors focused on civil-rights enforcement: DOJ and state prosecutors gain clearer, standalone statutes with defined mental-state elements and tiered penalties designed for common patterns of police misconduct.
- Incarcerated people: the bill sets a distinct, stricter definition for excessive force against incarcerated individuals (unnecessary and wanton), which narrows the range of permissible conduct in detention settings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual officers and corrections staff: new criminal exposure for failure-to-intervene, theft, obstruction, and certain firearm attempts increases potential personal liability and prison exposure.
- Law enforcement agencies and municipalities: increased risk of federal investigations, higher legal-defense and indemnification costs, and potential pressure to change policies, retention, and training.
- Police unions and representative bodies: greater frequency and complexity of federal cases will expand bargaining and defense demands and may require new legal strategies.
- Agency budgets and training programs: agencies will likely need to invest in record retention, body-worn-camera policies, recording-protection protocols, and failure-to-intervene training to limit criminal exposure and liability.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is accountability versus criminalizing split‑second policing choices: it seeks to hold officers criminally answerable for clear abuses and concealment, but in doing so it crystallizes standards that risk second‑guessing on-the-scene decisions and imposes heavy burdens on agencies to preserve evidence, train personnel, and defend conduct that often occurs under stress and uncertainty.
The bill creates useful prosecutorial tools but raises several implementation and doctrinal questions. First, the new offenses sit alongside 18 U.S.C. § 242 and other civil-rights statutes, creating potential overlap and the need for prosecutors and courts to sort out which statutes best fit a given case; the bill’s distinct mental-state language (knowledge or conscious disregard) differs from § 242’s requirements and may produce litigation over which standard applies.
Second, the failure-to-intervene offense turns on 'duty, opportunity, and ability'—facts that are often disputed and context-sensitive in fast-moving incidents; determining those elements will rely heavily on detailed factual records and may encourage aggressive preservation of bystander and bodycam footage.
Third, the obstruction provisions expressly criminalize destroying or preventing recordings, which strengthens protections for witnesses and journalists but contains broad exceptions (internal briefings, undercover activities, victim interviews) that agencies can invoke; courts will likely see disputes about where legitimate operational confidentiality ends and unlawful concealment begins. Fourth, the theft provision’s low $25 initial threshold for property coverage paired with tiered penalties could create prosecutorial discretion issues and disputes about what constitutes legitimate versus illegitimate official taking—especially in circumstances where officers claim evidence handling, forfeiture, or administrative seizure authority.
Finally, the 7‑year limitations period (with no limit for death cases) lengthens exposure windows and raises questions about evidence preservation costs and the long tail of potential prosecutions, which will affect hiring, files retention, and litigation posture.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.