Overview
Title
To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include certain retired law enforcement officers in the public safety officers’ death benefits program.
ELI5 AI
S. 911 is a plan that allows certain retired police officers, who have been hurt or died in a special way because of their police work, to get money to help their families. It also says this can even happen for things that happened as long ago as January 1, 2012.
Summary AI
S. 911 seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by including certain retired law enforcement officers in the public safety officers' death benefits program. Specifically, it allows benefits for retired officers who died or became permanently disabled due to a targeted attack related to their service. The bill applies retroactively to relevant actions occurring on or after January 1, 2012.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The legislation at hand, known as the “Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025,” seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The primary purpose of this amendment is to extend death benefits to certain retired law enforcement officers. Specifically, those who suffer personal injury or death due to targeted attacks related to their previous law enforcement service would be eligible for these benefits. Notably, the amendment has a retroactive applicability date extending the eligibility for incidents dating back to January 1, 2012.
Significant Issues
One of the main issues surrounding this bill is its narrow scope of eligibility. By limiting benefits exclusively to cases involving "targeted attacks," the legislation potentially omits other severe risks retired officers might face due to their service, which raises concerns about fairness. Additionally, the bill fails to unambiguously define what constitutes a "targeted attack," possibly leading to inconsistent interpretations and application of the benefits provision.
Another critical issue is the provision's retroactive applicability as far back as January 1, 2012. While this could considerably benefit applicable retired officers or their families, it also carries significant financial implications. The legislation does not address how these retroactive benefits will be funded, potentially impacting budget allocations for public safety programs.
Furthermore, the criteria for a retired officer to have been in "good standing" at the time of separation are not clearly defined, which could result in disputes about who qualifies. The lack of defined procedures for verifying claims of targeted attacks exacerbates concerns about equitable application of the law.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill holds the promise of increasing support and recognition for retired law enforcement officers who have been victims of targeted violence because of their public service. It acknowledges the risks that persist beyond active duty and seeks to provide a safety net for those who have made sacrifices for public safety.
However, the financial implications of retroactive benefits and the limited definition of eligible incidents may impact how resources are allocated within public safety and justice programs. This could lead to adjustments or cuts in other areas if additional funding is not secured.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For retired law enforcement officers and their families, particularly those affected by incidents that could be classified as targeted attacks, the bill promises significant and positive impacts. It offers a sense of justice and recognition for the ongoing risks associated with a career in law enforcement.
On the other hand, those who face risks not covered under the "targeted attack" criteria may view the bill as incomplete, leading to potential dissatisfaction within the broader retired law enforcement community.
Policymakers and public safety administrators may also encounter challenges in implementing the bill, given the unresolved issues around definitions and verification processes. Establishing these definitions and processes could require additional resources and time, which might delay benefits distribution or result in legal challenges.
Overall, while the bill is well-intentioned in honoring the sacrifices of law enforcement officers, the lack of clarity and comprehensive coverage may result in significant challenges to its implementation and effectiveness.
Issues
The eligibility criteria in Section 2 for retired law enforcement officers to receive benefits are restricted to those injured or killed as a result of a 'targeted attack.' This limitation could exclude other valid scenarios where officers might face significant harm due to their service, raising ethical and fairness concerns about the comprehensiveness of the bill.
The lack of a clear definition for 'targeted attack' in Section 2 may lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications of who qualifies for benefits, exposing the process to potential legal challenges and inequities.
The retroactive applicability clause in Section 2 allows benefits to be applied retroactively to January 1, 2012, which could have significant financial implications that are not addressed in the bill. This might result in unforeseen budgetary impacts that could affect public safety funding.
The criteria for a retired law enforcement officer to have been in 'good standing' upon separation from service, as stated in Section 2, are not clearly defined. This ambiguity may lead to disputes or differing interpretations, potentially complicating the administration of benefits.
Section 2 lacks guidance on how the Bureau of Justice Assistance will verify claims of targeted attacks. Without clear procedures, there could be inconsistent application of benefits, leading to questions about the adequacy of current verification processes.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The beginning of the Act specifies its official short title as the “Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025.”
2. Inclusion of certain retired public safety officers in the public safety officers’ death benefits program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill adds a rule that retired law enforcement officers injured or killed in targeted attacks related to their past service can qualify for death benefits. This change applies to incidents from January 1, 2012, onward, but officially starts when the bill is enacted.