Where The Candidates Stand On Police Accountability And Reform
National Police Accountability Project breaks down the records of both candidates.
With the election right around the corner, the National Police Accountability Project (NPAP), a non-profit dedicated to ending law enforcement abuse through legal action and educational programming, has prepared a detailed breakdown of where each presidential candidate stands on key areas of law enforcement regulation. Reviewing five categories of reform — accountability, independent oversight, transparency, conditions of confinement, and reducing contact with the police — the organization presents a fact-based and nonpartisan review of the candidates without taking sides.
I, on the other hand, am happy to get a little pushy with my analysis of these records.
First, let’s check out what NPAP has to say about VP Harris on the subject of accountability:
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
While in Congress, she co-authored the first draft of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would increase accountability for law enforcement misconduct and enhance pathways for victims to seek justice.
Harris supports limiting qualified immunity as a defense to liability and lowering the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution.
Harris also supports the prevention and remedy of racial profiling by law enforcement, as well as limiting unnecessary use of force and restricting dangerous practices, including no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and carotid holds. She has also rejected the arming of police agencies with military equipment.
Qualified immunity continues to be the world’s most destructive scrivener’s error. Whenever cops light a man on fire and avoid legal repercussions, it undermines public faith in the whole institution. While there are occasional outliers where bad cops face prosecution, the headline-grabbing exceptions largely prove the rule.
Meanwhile…
Donald Trump supports reducing liability for police officers, including strengthening qualified immunity and increasing penalties for assaults on law enforcement.
Trump would give police more authority and has been vocal in his support of the use of violent force. He notably pledged to militarize local police departments and threatened to send in the National Guard and federal prosecutors in response to protests and “high-crime” areas.
During the Trump Presidency, the ACLU filed more than 430 legal actions against the administration, including lawsuits aimed at defending the right to protest against police brutality and stopping mass surveillance by law enforcement.
Sponsored
Luxury, Lies, And A $10 Million Embezzlement
Law Firm Business Development Is More Than Relationship Building
Tackling Deposition Anxiety: How AI Is Changing The Way Lawyers Do Depositions
Luxury, Lies, And A $10 Million Embezzlement
Up there with “can God create a boulder so big…” on the list of paradoxical questions has to be “can qualified immunity be strengthened and still be qualified?” Today’s immunity jurisprudence runs right up to the line on absolute immunity. Any further and cops could just shoot people on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, which is admittedly Trump’s vision.
On the subject of independent oversight:
Harris supports the federal establishment of uniform accreditation standards for law enforcement agencies that would require law enforcement officers to complete training on racial profiling, implicit bias, and the duty to intervene in cases of excessive force by another officer. She supports federal oversight of police agencies who present a pattern and practice of misconduct as well as administrative subpoena power to the DOJ In these investigations.
Trump has no corresponding section here, though he probably would nationalize the cops to pursue immigrants or the “enemy within” which is a kind of oversight.
Sponsored
Thomson Reuters' Claims Explorer: A Powerful Tool For Legal Claim Identification
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
But this brings us to Trump’s stance on transparency, which might add insight to this rejection of any role for federal law enforcement:
During his time as President, Trump cast doubt on federal monitoring of local departments and suggested in 2023 that Congress should “defund the DOJ and FBI” for their role in investigating him. He has expressed he believed that body-worn cameras should not be required, but rather up to the individual officer’s discretion.
Another important indicator for Trump’s stance on accountability is his endorsement by police unions, one of the most powerful and vocal opponents of reform, accountability, and transparency for police officers across the country.
Meanwhile, Harris seems a lot more supportive of a DOJ role:
Harris supports the development of a national police misconduct registry and would establish new reporting requirements, including on the use of force, officer misconduct, and routine policing practices (e.g., stops and searches).
Harris is supportive of body worn cameras, which were introduced under her watch in California, though she refused to support statewide standards regulating their use.
During her time as the Attorney General of California, Harris was criticized for not using her office to investigate police shootings, rejecting legislation that would have mandated her office investigate all fatal police shootings. There have also been criticisms of her decision to uphold wrongful convictions, especially those secured through official misconduct.
Candidates can evolve and her role as California AG carried different institutional demands than serving as president, but there’s some dissonance in calling for more accountability and pushing back on qualified immunity while having a demonstrated record of pushing back against efforts to investigate police misconduct or question wrongful convictions.
Prison is an awful place to end up, but government leaders can set the tone for how America incarcerates people:
In her 2020 campaign for President she promised to end federal mandatory minimum sentences and to end solitary confinement and cash bail. She has been silent on these issues in her 2024 campaign. She has also refused to comment on her previous promise to close private prisons and detention facilities.
Under her watch, the Attorney General’s office argued against releasing incarcerated individuals who were eligible for early release because the state needed their cheap labor to fight California wildfires. Harris claimed at the time that she was not aware of her office’s stance.
Pulling back from her 2020 pledges leaves the electorate a little in the dark. Private prisons would, one would think, be the easiest stance to take because even law and order folks question the idea of a private company suing the state for not having enough prisoners. It offends even the most hardcore that taxpayers should be on the hook to pay corporations when crime goes down.
But then again, I don’t understand how ending cash bail is controversial since, if someone is eligible for cash bail, it’s someone who’s already getting out of jail if they have enough money to pay a bond. Once someone is designated not enough threat to be kept in jail, there’s no need to artificially run up a bunch of fees on them to get a bond. Yet “ending cash bail” is a mantra all over local campaign ads despite no one making a coherent argument why it’s therefore OK to let someone out as long as they have $500 that the government will end up refunding anyway.
Trump has promised to accelerate mass incarceration by directing federal prosecutors to seek the most serious charges and maximum sentences. Within carceral settings, he has proposed punitive policies, including the continuation of solitary confinement and the elimination of restoration programs. He has expressed he does not believe incarcerated individuals should retain the right to vote. He has expressed support for the continuation of contracts with private jail and prison operators.
He might need to personally reconsider whether or not felons should vote.
When it comes to reducing contact with police:
Harris has a mixed record on criminalization. Harris has said she regrets her support of truancy prosecution as California Attorney General, which criminalized the parents of children who missed school. She has vocally opposed the criminalization of abortion and co-sponsored a bill to reclassify marijuana’s addiction level and its criminal consequences to less than that of heroin.
On the other hand, she has also supported criminalization efforts with damaging consequences. On the campaign trail, Harris has shifted to positioning herself as pro-immigration to pledging restrictive immigration, asylum, and border policies. She co-sponsored FOSTA/SESTA to limit sex work online, which advocates say have resulted in sex workers being forced into more dangerous work on the streets.
Harris has long touted her prosecutorial outlook. And when she laughs about criminalizing single working moms to solve truancy or going after sex workers as a roundabout answer to trafficking, it normalizes the idea that we live in a world of nails and the criminal justice system should be the hammer. The Overton Window (at the risk of oversimplification, the idea that folks generally accept as “reasonable” a point between the extremes set by the two parties) is real, and it’s deeply problematic that the left pole is getting set at “arrest more people.”
That said…
Trump has voiced support for outdated policing strategies including “stop and frisk,” eliminated in many cities for racial profiling. This and other aggressive policing strategies would increase civilian interactions with the police, therefore increasing the likelihood of violence and fatalities for all involved.
Trump has advocated for sending drug users to prison for simple possession, where overdose and withdrawal deaths are already on the rise. He has also stated he wants to move the unhoused out of cities, a process that would likely involve unnecessary and violent law enforcement interaction with a community that is above all in need of housing and care.
Trump supports criminalizing transgender youth for participating in sports and/or seeking gender-affirming care, a stance that introduces police into the lives of children and their parents in what should be personal and medical choices.
A cornerstone of Trump’s campaign has been his promise to criminalize both legal and illegal immigrants. Trump promises to restrict legal immigration, including a ban on travelers from some Muslim countries. He has stated he would eliminate asylum for undocumented immigrants and would initiate mass deportations, including those that do not require due process.
Just because the Overton Window is moving toward expanding the reach of criminal prosecution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still support the less fascist option. I harbor deep reservations about Harris based on her lengthy record in this space… but I’m also not going to embrace an authoritarian crackdown just because the other candidate is a regressive prosecutor.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
