,,iii  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session 
,s4 ,,res4 #fjb  ,,in ,,the ,,senate    
,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states  ,june #b1 
#bjbj,mr4 ,booker 7for ,mr4 ,markey 7for
 himself1 ,mr4 ,booker1 ,ms4 ,warren1   
,mr4 ,van ,hollen1 and ,mr4 ,sanders77  
submitted the following resolution2     
which was referred to the ,committee on 
the ,judiciary  ,,resolution            
,recognizing that the murder of ,george 
,floyd by officers of the ,minneapolis  
,police ,department is the result of    
pervasive and systemic racism that      
cannot be dismantled without1 among     
other things1 proper redress in the     
courts4  ,whereas ,black people in the  
,united ,states are disproportionately  
the victims of shootings1 chokeholds1   
and other uses of excessive force by law
 enforcement officers2 ,whereas the use 
of excessive force during an arrest or  
investigatory stop constitutes an       
unreasonable seizure under the ,fourth  
,amendment to the ,constitution of the  
,united ,states1 which guarantees the   

right of every person in the ,united    
,states to be free from unreasonable    
searches and seizures at the hands of   
law enforcement officers2 ,whereas the  
use of excessive force during a period  
of pretrial detention constitutes the   
deprivation of due process under the    
,fifth and #adth ,amendments to the     
,constitution of the ,united ,states1   
which guarantee the right of every      
person in the ,united ,states to be free
 from arbitrary interference with the   
liberty of that person at the hands of  
law enforcement officers2 ,whereas the  
use of excessive force during a term of 
imprisonment constitutes the use of     
cruel and unusual punishment under the  
,eighth ,amendment to the ,constitution 
of the ,united ,states1 which guarantees
 the right of every person in the       
,united ,states to be free from cruel   
and unusual punishment at the hands of  
law enforcement officers2 ,whereas      
section #aigi of the ,revised ,statutes 
7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc71 which is derived 

from the first section of the ,act of   
,april #bj1 #ahga 7commonly known as and
 referred to in this preamble as the    
,civil ,rights ,act of #ahga7 7#ag      
,stat4 #ac1 chapter #bb71 makes liable  
every person1 including police officers1
 correctional officers1 and other law   
enforcement officers1 who1 under color  
of law1 deprives another person of civil
 rights2 ,whereas the judicial doctrine 
of qualified immunity wrongly and       
unjustly precludes the victims of police
 violence from vindicating the rights of
 those victims under section #aigi of   
the ,revised ,statutes 7#db ,u4,s4,c4   
#aihc7-- 7#a7 by effectively immunizing 
law enforcement officers from civil suit
 unless a prior court case has clearly  
established that the challenged use of  
excessive force is illegal2 and  7#b7 by
 narrowly construing the clearly        
established standard so that any factual
 or contextual distinctions between the 
challenged use of excessive force and   
the use of excessive force in a prior   

case1 even small or insignificant       
distinctions1 are cause for qualified   
immunity with respect to the challenged 
use of excessive force2 ,whereas the    
defense of qualified immunity has no    
historical common law basis2 ,whereas   
the intent of ,congress in enacting the 
,civil ,rights ,act of #ahga was to hold
 ,state and local law enforcement       
officers accountable for intimidating1  
harming1 and murdering ,black people in 
the ,united ,states after the ,civil    
,war2 ,whereas1 in #bjag1 ,supreme      
,court ,justice ,clarence ,thomas       
recognized that the defense of qualified
 immunity has no textual basis in       
section #aigi of the ,revised ,statutes 
7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc7 and thereby       
represents precisely the sort of        
freewheeling policy choice that courts  
have previously disclaimed the power to 
make2 ,whereas the courts of appeals of 
the ,united ,states are more likely than
 not to grant qualified immunity to law 
enforcement officers2 ,whereas1 in      

#bjah1 ,supreme ,court ,justice ,sonia  
,sotomayor acknowledged that the        
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states  
routinely displays an unflinching       
willingness to reverse decisions of the 
courts of appeals of the ,united ,states
 denying qualified immunity to law      
enforcement officers2 ,whereas the lack 
of accountability that results from     
qualified immunity arouses frustration1 
disappointment1 and anger throughout the
 ,united ,states1 which discredits and  
endangers the vast majority of law      
enforcement officers1 who do not engage 
in the use excessive force2 ,whereas a  
civil action under section #aigi of the 
,revised ,statutes 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc7
 is often the only viable solution for  
victims of police violence and the      
families of those victims to hold law   
enforcement officers accountable for the
 use of excessive force because criminal
 prosecutors are reluctant to charge1   
and juries are hesitant to convict1 law 
enforcement officers2 and ,whereas the  

,government of the ,united ,states has  
established itself as a government of   
laws1 and not of men1 but will cease to 
be so if it does not furnish a viable   
remedy for all civil rights violations3 
,now1 therefore1 be it ,that the        
,senate-- 7#a7 recognizes and           
acknowledges the legal and racial       
inequities inherent in the judicial     
doctrine of qualified immunity as that  
doctrine is applied to law enforcement  
officers2  7#b7 recognizes and          
acknowledges that the doctrine of       
qualified immunity rests on a mistaken  
judicial interpretation of a statute    
enacted by ,congress2 and  7#c7         
recognizes and acknowledges that1 to    
correct that mistaken judicial          
interpretation1 ,congress should amend  
section #aigi of the ,revised ,statutes 
7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc7 to eliminate the  
qualified immunity defense for law      
enforcement officers as that defense    
exists as of ,june #a1 #bjbj4