A bill that advanced through the House could lead to unconstitutional abuses by lightly-trained law enforcement officers, Democrats have warned. Some of their colleagues in the Senate, however, appear poised to help the legislation become law.
Federal probation officers would be granted the power to arrest those not under their direct supervision, under the proposal. It passed the House on Friday in a 229-177 vote, largely along party lines.
If and when Senators decide to take up the measure, it will have the support of the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Feinstein is an original cosponsor of the Senate version of the proposal, alongside Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). The pair were joined by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who endorsed the legislation last week.
Three Republicans also currently support the measure. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) have all backed the bill.
The push behind the bill in the House was far more one-sided. Only thirty-seven Democrats and 33 Republicans crossed the aisle during last week’s vote.
Earlier this month, fifteen Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee decried the proposal for seeking to carve out broad arrest powers for federal probation officers.
They said “vague terms, such as ‘opposed’ and ‘interfered’” would lead to Fourth Amendment violations by allowing probation officers “to arrest individuals who are merely uncooperative.”
Probation officers can currently only arrest those they are supervising, and only when they have probable cause to believe the terms of release have been violated.
The House Judiciary Dems also said that the legislation was unnecessary. They claimed there is “no data” demonstrating that “third parties routinely present substantial risk” to federal probation officers.
They also pointed out that probation officers usually have only six weeks of “entry-level” training, whereas new police officers typically go through between 19-24 weeks of preparation before hitting the beat with arrest powers.
“The constructive role of [federal parole officers] in fostering the rehabilitation of supervisees would be damaged if they become de facto police officers,” they concluded.
