Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Allows people to legally record police officers performing their public duties.
The problem
Questions exist about whether citizens can record law enforcement during public interactions. This affects transparency and accountability in policing.
The proposal
The bill would establish a federal right for people to record police officers acting in public. It would clarify legal protections for citizens making these recordings.
The impact
Citizens gain recording rights during police interactions. Police procedures may change. The public gets more documentation of law enforcement activities.
Recording police creates documentation of encounters. This can help verify what happened during police interactions. More evidence becomes available for investigations and legal cases.
People have clear legal protection when recording. They don't risk arrest or penalties for documenting public police activity. This encourages accountability in law enforcement.
Video recordings provide independent records of events. This helps courts, investigators, and oversight bodies understand what occurred. Multiple perspectives on incidents become available.
Open documentation of police actions can build confidence in law enforcement. Transparency about police conduct helps the public understand police work. It addresses concerns about misconduct.
Recording might distract or endanger police during dangerous situations. Officers need to focus on safety. Recordings could be misused or taken out of context.
Recordings may capture bystanders or sensitive information. Other people in public could be recorded without consent. Privacy of innocent people could be affected.
Police departments need clear rules about when recording is allowed. Training requirements and procedures would cost time and money. Conflicts may arise about what qualifies as 'public duty.'
More recordings could lead to more lawsuits against police. Disputes may arise over how footage is used. Law enforcement agencies could face additional legal costs.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 4307
Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act
HR 10638
Skills Against Violence Act of 2026
HR 10565
Sexual Abuse Services in Detention Act
HR 10543
PREP Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.