Oklahoma Senate Bill SB1056

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Torts; stating liability of peace officers for injuries related to the deprivation of certain rights; prohibiting the assertion of qualified immunity as a defense to liability. Effective date.

Summary

SB1056 creates a new state-law cause of action against peace officers employed by the state or a political subdivision when, acting under color of law, they deprive a person of rights secured by the Oklahoma Bill of Rights. The bill expressly includes failures to intervene and allows injured parties to seek legal, equitable, or other appropriate relief. It also states that statutory immunities and liability limits do not apply to these claims, and it bars qualified immunity as a defense. The bill further requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, while allowing fee awards to defendants only for frivolous claims. It directs an officer’s employer to indemnify the officer for judgments or settlements arising under the section, but creates exceptions where the employer determines the officer did not act in good faith and with a reasonable belief the conduct was lawful, and where the officer’s conduct constituted a criminal offense for which the officer was convicted. The act would take effect November 1, 2025.

Impact

If enacted, SB1056 would significantly alter Oklahoma tort and civil-rights litigation by carving out peace-officer liability claims from the Governmental Tort Claims Act and other statutory immunity or damages limitations. It would create a direct statutory remedy for alleged violations of state constitutional rights, shift fee exposure toward defendants in successful cases, and impose indemnification obligations on public employers, subject to the bill’s stated exceptions. The measure would affect peace officers, their employing agencies, insurers, and plaintiffs alleging rights violations.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears designed to expand accountability for law-enforcement misconduct and strengthen remedies for injured plaintiffs, which suggests support from reform-oriented advocates. At the same time, the bill’s elimination of qualified immunity and limits on statutory defenses would likely draw opposition from law-enforcement and municipal interests concerned about litigation exposure and indemnification costs.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s abolition of qualified immunity, its override of the Governmental Tort Claims Act and other statutory limits, and the financial consequences for public employers that must indemnify officers. Supporters would likely emphasize access to remedies for constitutional-rights violations and accountability for officers who fail to intervene or act unlawfully. Opponents would likely focus on increased liability, potential impacts on recruitment and retention, and the bill’s treatment of employer indemnification, especially where an officer is found to have acted in bad faith or been convicted of a criminal offense.