Provide immunity for security personnel of a religious organization.
House Bill 1214 creates a civil liability shield for volunteer security personnel serving a religious organization, and for the religious organization itself, when those volunteers provide safety, security, or protection services at or for the organization. The bill defines key terms such as “religious organization,” “security personnel,” and “volunteer,” and limits the protection to unpaid personnel acting with authorization from the religious organization.
The immunity applies whether the volunteer security services involve deadly force or non-deadly force, as long as the conduct does not rise to unreasonable, reckless, grossly negligent, or wanton behavior. In effect, the bill is designed to reduce the risk of civil damages claims arising from security activities at houses of worship and related gatherings, while preserving liability for more serious misconduct.
HB1214 would add a new section to chapter 20-9 of South Dakota law, establishing a specific civil immunity for volunteer security personnel of religious organizations and extending that immunity to the organizations themselves. It would affect potential tort claims for damages related to security, protection, or safety services provided at churches, synagogues, houses of worship, and similar religious gatherings, including claims involving the use of force. The bill does not eliminate liability for reckless, grossly negligent, wanton, or unreasonable conduct, so existing standards of care would still matter in those cases.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably at least in committee, with a 13-0 vote to defer it to the 41st legislative day, indicating no recorded opposition at that stage. There are no committee transcript snippets provided, so there is no direct record of debate or amendments in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a protective measure for faith communities and their volunteer security teams.
The main policy issue is the scope of immunity, especially the inclusion of protection provided using deadly force. Supporters are likely to view the bill as necessary to help religious organizations safely staff security at worship services and events without fear of civil lawsuits. Potential concerns would center on whether the immunity is too broad, whether it could reduce accountability for harmful conduct, and how courts would apply the exceptions for reckless, grossly negligent, or wanton actions. The bill’s text attempts to address those concerns by preserving liability for egregious misconduct.