Law enforcement: other; use of force policies; require law enforcement agencies to create. Creates new act.
Summary
SB 333 would require every Michigan law enforcement agency to adopt a written use-of-force policy within six months after the act takes effect. The bill sets minimum policy standards, including that officers may use only objectively reasonable physical force, that deadly force may be used only when necessary to protect the officer or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that agencies address verbal warnings, alternatives to force, and de-escalation techniques. It also defines key terms such as deadly force, serious bodily harm, de-escalation technique, and objectively reasonable force.
The bill further requires agencies to treat continuous restriction of air flow to the throat or windpipe as deadly force when it creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. Agencies must continuously review and update their policies to keep them aligned with the act and with case law, and they must make the policies publicly available either online or at the agency’s physical location. The bill does not prevent agencies from adopting stricter policies than the minimum requirements in the act.
Impact
SB 333 would create a new statewide statutory framework governing local and state law enforcement use-of-force policies in Michigan. It would impose affirmative duties on each law enforcement agency to adopt, maintain, and publicly disclose a policy meeting minimum standards, thereby affecting agency procedures, training, policy review, and public transparency. The bill would also codify a specific rule treating certain airway-restricting force as deadly force, which could affect officer conduct, internal discipline, and litigation standards involving use-of-force incidents.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, as it was reported favorably without amendment by a 5-1 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public or legislative sentiment beyond that favorable committee action. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a policy reform measure aimed at standardizing and clarifying use-of-force rules rather than as a controversial overhaul.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on how restrictive the bill is for police agencies and officers, particularly the requirement that force be objectively reasonable, the emphasis on de-escalation and verbal warnings, and the provision classifying continuous airway restriction as deadly force. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary safeguards and transparency measures, while critics may argue they constrain officer discretion in rapidly evolving situations or duplicate existing constitutional and case-law standards. The lone dissenting committee vote suggests at least some concern about the bill’s mandates, though the record provided does not identify the specific objection.