St. Louis leaders have challenged a new Missouri law that expands the rights of police officers and mandates local governments provide their legal defense in court regarding their actions while off duty.

TJ

“The wide range of subjects, bearing little or no relationship to ‘public safety,’ is fatal to the validity of SB 26,” the city’s attorneys argued.

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones’ administration filed the lawsuit Dec. 3 against the state and its Attorney General Eric Schmitt.

At the center of the suit’s several allegations is Senate Bill 26, which was passed in May after its introduction in December 2020. It is labeled as “relating to public safety” and grew from its original seven sections to 88 sections — many of which were not related to public safety.

“The wide range of subjects, bearing little or no relationship to ‘public safety,’ is fatal to the validity of SB 26,” the city’s attorneys argued.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt.

The lawsuit also alleges the same bill is unconstitutional because of a provision requiring the city to fund the defense, representation and indemnification, even if the actions in question were done while the officer was off duty, in situations like contracted security work.

The attorneys argue this is in direct violation of a state provision banning the use of public funds for private purposes and also unconstitutional because no funding is provided for these expanded responsibilities. 

Another one of those 88 provisions outlined a “police officers’ bill of rights” relating to procedures for imposing discipline on law enforcement officers.

The suit claims the provision creates inequality between sworn officers and other city employees, including one of its plaintiffs, Heather Taylor, a retired police officer and the senior advisor to the city’s interim public safety director.

Attorneys argue the law does that by creating two classes of employees who are subject to vastly different due process rights, in which law enforcement officers are given more due process rights during disciplinary investigations than all other employees of local municipalities and governments.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *