Building Bridges and Transforming Resentment and Unfairness to Support and Trust for Municipal Law Enforcement Act of 2015

The growing trend of local units of government using traffic fines and traffic court fees and costs as revenue generators promotes unfair, excessive targeting of citizens by law enforcement agents, infringes on civil liberties, and promotes reliance on unpredictable revenue sources.

The growing trend of local units of government using traffic fines and traffic court fees and costs as revenue generators has the potential to breed public cynicism and distrust of local law enforcement agencies, and to lessen public confidence that the laws are being enforced impartially and the criminal justice system is administered equally.

Collection of fines for violations of traffic laws— Except as provided in subsection (b) or section 4, a unit of local government which, during the previous 3 fiscal years, funded an amount that, on average, was greater than 18 percent of its operating budget using revenue generated from collecting fines and other fees related to violations of traffic laws, shall, in the case of a unit of local government receiving grant funds under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), receive only 25 percent of the grant award that would have otherwise been awarded to that unit of local government under such subpart.

Disproportionate racial composition of law enforcement agencies— In the case of a unit of local government described in subsection (a) for which, during the previous fiscal year, the percentage of individuals who identify as a race who were employees of the law enforcement agency for that unit of local government, and the percentage of individuals who identify as that race who live in the jurisdiction which that law enforcement agency serves, differs by greater than 30 percent, the unit of local government shall receive only 5 percent of the grant award that would have otherwise been awarded to that unit of local government under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).

Obligation of States— A State that receives a grant award under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), which does not reduce a subgrant award made under such grant to a unit of local government in its jurisdiction in accordance with this section, shall, in the succeeding fiscal year, receive only 50 percent of the grant award that would have otherwise been awarded to that State under such subpart.

Reallocation— Any funds withheld from a State or unit of local government from a direct grant award by the Attorney General shall be reallocated in accordance with subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).

that serves a population of less than 15,000 people and so certifies to the Attorney General; or

to which the Attorney General has granted a waiver under section 5.

Whether, resulting from allegations of excessive uses of force, false arrests, improper searches and seizures, failures to discipline officers sufficiently, or failure to supervise officers, the unit of local government is subject to a consent decree or Memorandum of Understanding, or the subject of an investigation by the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

Whether the unit of local government has taken affirmative action to ensure that adequate practices and procedures are in place to increase public trust and confidence in the impartial and equitable administration of justice, including—

Whether the minority community is equitably represented in the municipality’s legislative body and executive departments.