On the recordMay 24, 2012
I would like to make clear for the record a matter relating to the Officer Safety Act of 2012. I thank my colleague from Iowa for working with me on this legislation. I cosponsored this bill after changes were made, in the nature of a substitute amendment, to clarify the limited scope of the legislation. The Officer Safety Act clarifies when an officer is ``acting under the color of his office'' for removal purposes only. As my colleague has stated previously, the bill provides no liability protection. Whether a law enforcement officer is deemed to have been ``acting under the color of his office'' for removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(c), as amended, is a separate question from whether that officer should subsequently be held liable for his conduct, whether the officer should be considered immune from suit, or whether the officer's defense in a criminal trial has merit. The clarification of ``color of . . . office'' and the expansion of removal eligibility granted by this legislation is not meant to affect those latter determinations of liability and immunity. The bill is simply meant to give these law enforcement officers the ability to make arguments pertaining to liability, immunity, and potential criminal defenses in Federal rather than in State court. Does my colleague agree?
