A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 27-09.1-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to excusing law enforcement officers from jury duty; and to provide for application.
SB 2095 would amend North Dakota’s jury-excusal statute to expressly allow a court to excuse a full-time law enforcement officer from jury service when the jury duty is for a criminal trial. The bill defines “law enforcement officer” broadly to include full-time salaried sheriffs, deputies, police chiefs, police officers, and other full-time licensed peace officers employed by a criminal justice agency or branch. It also preserves the court’s existing authority to excuse prospective jurors for undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity.
The measure would make this exemption apply only to jury summonses sent after the bill’s effective date. In practical terms, it would create a categorical basis for excusing certain law enforcement personnel from serving on criminal juries, rather than leaving the issue solely to general hardship-based discretion.
The bill would revise section 27-09.1-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, narrowing the circumstances under which full-time law enforcement officers may be required to serve on criminal trial juries. It would not eliminate jury service obligations for law enforcement officers in all cases, but it would give courts explicit statutory authority to excuse them from criminal cases upon request or court initiative. The change would affect courts, jury administrators, and full-time peace officers employed by state or local criminal justice agencies.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no detailed public discussion to gauge legislative sentiment. The bill’s introduction suggests support for a targeted exemption for law enforcement officers, but its final status indicates it failed and did not advance into law. That outcome implies the proposal did not secure sufficient legislative support, though the available record does not show whether opposition was procedural, policy-based, or due to broader workload concerns.
The main policy issue is whether law enforcement officers should be automatically or specially excused from serving on criminal juries. Supporters would likely argue that officers’ professional duties, scheduling demands, and potential conflicts with criminal cases justify a clear exemption. Opponents may have been concerned that the bill would reduce the cross-section of eligible jurors, create a special carve-out for one occupational group, or undermine the principle that jury service is a civic obligation shared broadly across the community. Because there were no transcripts, the specific arguments and sponsors of those concerns are not documented in the provided record.