[DEFEATED] [GA#590 SUB!] Police Accountability Act

[Refuge Isle]

Character count: 4,021
Word count: 665

ICly by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly again.

OOC: This is a reboot of LEO Force Restrictions which attempts to avoid the flaws stated in its repeal. However, neither of the original two co-authors wanted their names attached to this. (This is because they're busy IRL and haven't really been able to help out in practice, not because they've disavowed the idea.)

Police Accountability Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Concerned that there currently exists no universal standard to regulate the use of force by law enforcement officers on duty in member states,

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person who is employed by law enforcement in a member state, and is acting in the course of their public-facing law enforcement duties, and
   2. the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person, to protect themselves from a physical attack (or threat thereof) by that person, or otherwise in the course of carrying out a routine action such as a body search against that person,
2. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:
   
   1. ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out in the circumstances,
   2. educate their current LEOs, and those who they are training to become LEOs in the future, on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article d(i) is appropriate,
   3. further educate their LEOs on de-escalation techniques that comply with WA law and when to use them,
   4. regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require that incidents where a decision has already been made upon review be re-reviewed, nor that incidents which occurred prior to this resolution coming into force be reviewed themselves), and
   5. where an Article b(iv) review uncovers the use of excessive force, appropriately discipline the LEO who used the excessive force and provide suitable support for the victims of that force,
3. forbids LEOs from using excessive force against any person,
4. mandates that LEOs:
   
   1. carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, or for which they carry any other class of weapon, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and
   2. wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,
5. requires that LEOs:
   
   1. avoid causing death or life-changing injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person, and
   2. ensure that people they have non-fatally harmed under Article e(i) receive any basic first aid necessary for their survival, where doing so would not cause or otherwise threaten death or life-changing injury to any LEO,
6. compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs after this resolution has been enacted that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have wilfully, recklessly or negligently administered force in contradiction of such Articles, and
7. recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

[Tinhampton]

Drafts 1-3 are linked from OP. If anything beyond and including Draft 4 becomes depreciated, it will be siloed off here.

[Tinhampton]

Helloooooooooooo?

[The Ice States]

Helloooooooooooo!

in the course of their employment as such

What does this wording achieve?

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,

Does this require that the same incident be "regularly revie[wed]"?

carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect

What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

Why only "in public"? This should apply whenever they are deployed in an active mission; or they can just go into a private location and take off their cameras so they can do whatever they want without it showing in these cameras.

compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles,

Why does this mandate the exact same punishment, ie being fired? For example, why does a LEO have to be fired if, in an isolated incident, they accidentally turn off their camera while on duty in public? It should be left up to each entity employing LEOs how to punish people who violate Sections b - e. Additionally, does this apply retroactively, ie do LEOs which engaged in acts which violate Sections b - e before this resolution is passed also have to be fired?

If these issues are addressed, I can support this.

[Tinhampton]

Helloooooooooooo!

Hiya. Sorry I'm late but if you'll forgive me, GC was very, very late.

in the course of their employment as such

What does this wording achieve?

It achieves LEOs not being prosecuted, under a law regulating what they can do on duty, for doing those things off-duty. It would be silly to require off-duty LEOs to carry deterrents, wear cameras, or treat people they accidentally injure while playing Sunday league rugby with the lads.

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,

Does this require that the same incident be "regularly revie[wed]"?

No. I've clarified this.

carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect

What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

There are no situations in which less-than-lethal deterrents are guaranteed not to be necessary. Surprise intrusions by criminal actors are always possible, for instance.

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

Why only "in public"? This should apply whenever they are deployed in an active mission; or they can just go into a private location and take off their cameras so they can do whatever they want without it showing in these cameras.

The requirement that cameras be active when LEOs are "on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation)" is clear. Regardless, this now applies only when LEOs are on "public-facing duties" if the argument that this does not exclude raids was not clear already.

compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles,

Why does this mandate the exact same punishment, ie being fired? For example, why does a LEO have to be fired if, in an isolated incident, they accidentally turn off their camera while on duty in public? It should be left up to each entity employing LEOs how to punish people who violate Sections b - e. Additionally, does this apply retroactively, ie do LEOs which engaged in acts which violate Sections b - e before this resolution is passed also have to be fired?

Article f's criminalisation provisions only cover "the use of force by LEOs that contradicts" the resolution provisions. It does not criminalise every single act banned by the resolution. Tampering with your camera is not use of force and therefores does not need to be criminalised.

As for retroactivity, this section now says that members must outlaw "the use of force by LEOs after this resolution is enacted that contradicts Articles b-e."

[The Ice States]

It achieves LEOs not being prosecuted, under a law regulating what they can do on duty, for doing those things off-duty. It would be silly to require off-duty LEOs to carry deterrents, wear cameras, or treat people they accidentally injure while playing Sunday league rugby with the lads.

I think this is a good idea, but it isn't very clear in the definition. I read "in the course of their employment as such" as being attached to "employed by law enforcement in a member state"; in which case the wording does nothing. You should rewrite the definition so that this is more clear.

What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

There are no situations in which less-than-lethal deterrents are guaranteed not to be necessary. Surprise intrusions by criminal actors are always possible, for instance.

I think it is honestly counterproductive to force less-lethal weapons to be carried regardless of need for them. Member nation police forces are more likely to use excessive force if they are forced to carry weapons when they otherwise have no need for them. A qualifier such as "for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary" (although I just wrote this wording up in a few seconds) would be helpful.

Article f's criminalisation provisions only cover "the use of force by LEOs that contradicts" the resolution provisions. It does not criminalise every single act banned by the resolution. Tampering with your camera is not use of force and therefores does not need to be criminalised.

There is no difference between something which contradicts the resolution and something which violates it. It indeed contradicts Section d.ii to accidentally turn off your camera.
Apologies, it appears I misread the resolution provision; consider my comment above retracted.

[Tinhampton]

I have done both of the things Mage has asked of me.

[Makko Oko]

b. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:

"His Emperor's Government fully supports the proposal sought by Ambassador Smith, however, question part b. What defines an entity? Why not mandate all nations to employ LEOs for the safety of our people? Both are valid questions and should be promptly addressed." - Minister of Justice Sara Mauer

[Tinhampton]

Smith: This is primarily a disciplinary resolution, not an organisational one. If you employ a police officer, you are covered by Article b.

[Simone Republic]

You don't use the word "Police" anywhere except the title

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and

Given my political tendencies, I somewhat dislike the preamble as it's giving me the impression of "Police bad"

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

I dislike the "including..." bit in brackets, at what point is someone vulnerable or not? There's some sort of victimhood assumption in there

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require the presumed re-review of incidents where a decision has already been made upon review, or where said incidents occurred substantially prior to this resolution coming into force),

Review and then what?

carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and

Can you be more accommodating on this? Herby will turn up with sapient cars and Simone Republic will turn up with bears the size of Belgium.

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

(1) Depends on technology available if you care about RP, you may notice that I do try if I can (2) what's the recording for in terms of evidence?

recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

How do you run that line on a significant strength?

[The Ice States]

Can you be more accommodating on this? Herby will turn up with sapient cars and Simone Republic will turn up with bears the size of Belgium.

(1) Depends on technology available if you care about RP, you may notice that I do try if I can

I don't see how this is necessary.

How do you run that line on a significant strength?

Significant strength doesn't mean every single clause has to be mandatory. I'm obviously not on Gensec, but I think the rest of the resolution does enough to be Significant.

I'm not opposed to the rest of the above being addressed; the point regarding Section b.iii is especially well-taken.

[Tinhampton]

I will submit this in about two months. Although I'm being EXTREMELY optimistic here.

I'm obviously not on Gensec

Famous Last Words

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and

Given my political tendencies, I somewhat dislike the preamble as it's giving me the impression of "Police bad"

Police brutality does, I assume, exist in the world of the WA. If it did not, I would not have written this.

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

I dislike the "including..." bit in brackets, at what point is someone vulnerable or not? There's some sort of victimhood assumption in there

The parenthesised clause should be interpreted liberally and with regard to the several thousand nations that constitute the WA's membership.

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require the presumed re-review of incidents where a decision has already been made upon review, or where said incidents occurred substantially prior to this resolution coming into force),

Review and then what?

And then provide the necessary support for both LEOs and victims of excessive force. Refer to the new Article b(iv). Note that the clause calls for LEOs to be appropriately disciplined - criminalisation is appropriate, indeed mandatory, for cases after the passage of this resolution, but not always for cases prior.

carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and

Can you be more accommodating on this? Herby will turn up with sapient cars and Simone Republic will turn up with bears the size of Belgium.

"less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals" is an "accommodating" provision already. Any reasonable object which can be used for detention purposes may be carried in fulfilment of this mandate. See also b(ii).

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

(1) Depends on technology available if you care about RP, you may notice that I do try if I can (2) what's the recording for in terms of evidence?

1: That's why I say they must be worn "where available in the member state they work in."
2: The recording is the evidence, in case any wrongdoing is suspected in the course of their use.

recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

How do you run that line on a significant strength?

With immense ease. Significant means that the resolution as a whole must be of Significant strength; non-binding clauses are allowed insofar as they don't eat up toooooooo much space.

[Tinhampton]

Bump for commentary

[Tigrisia]

We recommend to get rid of d. I, as such measures may compel police officers to execessively use tasers, due to them being "less severe" instead relying on deescalatory measures. We also recommend to mandate training on deescalatory measures in general.

For the delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia,
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

[Tinhampton]

We recommend to get rid of d. I, as such measures may compel police officers to execessively use tasers, due to them being "less severe" instead relying on deescalatory measures. We also recommend to mandate training on deescalatory measures in general.

For the delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia,
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

Smith: Article d(i) will not be removed; it only requires law enforcement officers to carry, rather than to actually use, the less-than-lethal tools enumerated. As for de-escalation, we have added a new Article b(iii) on that.

[Tinhampton]

Following discussion with The Ice States, Articles b(iv) and d(i) have been somewhat reworded. The practical effect of those changes, however, is minimal. I will be submitting next week, hopefully, unless anyone else has any comments.

[BEEstreetz]

Helloooooooooooo?

Sorry, I was on a hiatus during most of 2023. Need to preface this since I was staunchly in favour of both keeping the original and then helping in drafting the substitute.

Concerned that there currently exists no universal standard to regulate the use of force by law enforcement officers on duty in member states,

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of by the excessive use of force by from such officers, and

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds(including, particularly members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups), from unwarranted police brutality...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person who is employed by as a law enforcement employee in a member state, and is acting in the course of during their tenure as a public-facing official tasked with law enforcement duties, and
   2. the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situations to restrain and subsequently detain that person,
2. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:
   
   1. ensure, through education, training, and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out in the circumstances,
   2. educate and train their employed and future LEOs on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article d(i) is appropriate,
   3. further educate their LEOs on de-escalation techniques that comply with WA law and when to use them,
   4. regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require that incidents where a decision has already been made upon review be re-reviewed, nor that incidents which occurred prior to this resolution coming into force be reviewed themselves), and
   5. where an Article b(iv) review uncovers the use of excessive force, appropriately discipline the LEO who used the excessive force and provide suitable support for the victims of that force,
3. forbids LEOs from using excessive force against any person,
4. mandates that LEOs:
   
   1. carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, or for which they carry any other class of weapon, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as less lethal weapons, non lethal weapons, batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and
   2. wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover confidential information and employees of a law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,
5. requires that LEOs:
   
   1. avoid causing death or life-changing injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person, and
   2. ensure that people they have non-fatally harmed under Article e(i) receive any basic first aid necessary for their survival, where doing so would not cause or otherwise threaten death or life-changing injury to any LEO,
6. compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs after this resolution has been enacted that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have wilfully, recklessly or negligently administered force in contradiction of such Articles, and
7. recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

[/blocktext][/box]

Some suggested changes, related to formatting and some procedural applications.
Otherwise, good job and thank you.

[Tinhampton]

TL;DR is I don't think your changes will be of much use - but thank you for the feedback anyway as well!

Your changes to Article a(i) would bind people employed as LEOs to the provision of this resolution at all times, including when they are playing amateur sports, going shopping or surfing the internet. This would not be helpful for reasons you can hopefully grasp.

- "as a result of the excessive use of force by [LEOs]" is grammatically correct; "as a result by the excessive use of force from [LEOs]" is not.
- "than is necessary in the situation" is the correct English in the context of Article a(ii), not "than is necessary in situations."
- Not a grammar nitpick, but I'm keeping the statement that the people affected by police brutality are "including" rather than "particularly" the disadvantaged. I have no intention of making WA-wide assumptions about the victims of police brutality, not when people have been complaining about this potentially veering too close to discussing the IRL ethics of the matter.

There's no need to clarify that LEOs must receive "education and training" (as opposed to "education") on Article b matters; they are functionally the same concept for our purposes. Also, how do you expect a law enforcement agency to train future LEOs ahead of time? They can just hire the LEOs and then train them on day one.

There's also no need to clarify that all less-than-lethal and non-lethal weapons fall within the bounds of "less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals."

I'm also not changing Article d(ii). Everyone knows what an undercover police operation is and it makes sense for cameras to be turned off or abandoned during such operations. Changing the conditions in which they need not be used to ensure the protection of "confidential information and employees of a law enforcement operation" would make this useless - in theory, since the database hosting the camera recordings can be hacked, any recording would therefore threaten the personal information and potentially lives of LEOs.

[BEEstreetz]

TL;DR is I don't think your changes will be of much use - but thank you for the feedback anyway as well!

Your changes to Article a(i) would bind people employed as LEOs to the provision of this resolution at all times, including when they are playing amateur sports, going shopping or surfing the internet. This would not be helpful for reasons you can hopefully grasp.

- "as a result of the excessive use of force by [LEOs]" is grammatically correct; "as a result by the excessive use of force from [LEOs]" is not.
- "than is necessary in the situation" is the correct English in the context of Article a(ii), not "than is necessary in situations."
- Not a grammar nitpick, but I'm keeping the statement that the people affected by police brutality are "including" rather than "particularly" the disadvantaged. I have no intention of making WA-wide assumptions about the victims of police brutality, not when people have been complaining about this potentially veering too close to discussing the IRL ethics of the matter.

There's no need to clarify that LEOs must receive "education and training" (as opposed to "education") on Article b matters; they are functionally the same concept for our purposes. Also, how do you expect a law enforcement agency to train future LEOs ahead of time? They can just hire the LEOs and then train them on day one.

There's also no need to clarify that all less-than-lethal and non-lethal weapons fall within the bounds of "less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals."

I'm also not changing Article d(ii). Everyone knows what an undercover police operation is and it makes sense for cameras to be turned off or abandoned during such operations. Changing the conditions in which they need not be used to ensure the protection of "confidential information and employees of a law enforcement operation" would make this useless - in theory, since the database hosting the camera recordings can be hacked, any recording would therefore threaten the personal information and potentially lives of LEOs.

I'm fine with the rejections except for the rejection of "future LEO", which I believe could be added in the context of education. It would mean that (whichever academy/facility/substitute is used for qualification) LEO facilities include in their process these provisions.

Thank you for a(i), since the grammar was my main concern. For some reason (likely different education background), English professors placed an emphasis to avoid repeating the same connective words (to......to.....by......by, etc.) in a full sentence.
Training can be within education of LEOs, though my concern was that it would be relativised, as often is.
I've initially wished to place "confidentiality of information" under yellow text. The reason is that it would serve as basis for further expanding the Resolution beyond its scope; Though is an idea for another Resolution covering it substantially and separately.

[Tinhampton]

I would hope that LEO employers will see fit to train prospective LEOs. If they do not, they must train them on the job.

[Tinhampton]

Bump. Will hopefully submit over the weekend.

[Tigrisia]

I would hope that LEO employers will see fit to train prospective LEOs. If they do not, they must train them on the job.

Well, that's not a particularily good idea. They should train them BEFORE that.

OOC: That's the main reason why US police sucks. I mean they are trained weeks, while in Germany, even for the most basic jobs of police officers, you need at least 2 years of training.

[Tinhampton]

I would hope that LEO employers will see fit to train prospective LEOs. If they do not, they must train them on the job.

Well, that's not a particularily good idea. They should train them BEFORE that.

OOC: That's the main reason why US police sucks. I mean they are trained weeks, while in Germany, even for the most basic jobs of police officers, you need at least 2 years of training.

b(ii) has been updated to include "those who they are training to become LEOs in the future," given the consensus on this matter.

[Tinhampton]

I will in fact submit this on Monday minor. Sorry

[Cessarea]

A marble pedestal is carried into the room by two peculiar gnomes. On top of it, several rings of thin metallic bands arranged in a hollow sphere and bits of machinery emits a bright, twirling light constantly changing in colour and intensity. As it rolled through the hall, proximity to certain objects changes the luminous patterns within. Upon being placed behind the neatly-marked Cessarean delegation's desk, the light settled on a dark blue hue, and began to project an ethereal cacophony of multiple voices speaking in unison, monotone despite their variety:

"Mister Smith, the Cessarean Hibernation Intelligence Protocol for Foreign Affairs has received, analysed, and reached internal consensus on the proposal entitled 'Police Accountability Act', written by the delegation under your guidance. The Protocol has been authorised by 87% of hibernating Artificials to provide 'feedback'. We will list our 'feedback' in order of appearance according to the submitted draft."

Believing [...] unwarranted police brutality...

"The Protocol notes that the ellipsis employed in this preambulatory clause is needless."

a. defines [...]
ii. the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person [...]

"The Protocol is aware of Law Enforcement Officers employing excessive force in situations that are not necessarily related to the restraint and arrest of a person. Excessive force may also be used under circumnstances of self-defence, or merely in routine procedures such as a body search. We would like to see the definition of 'excessive force' for the purposes of this act expanded."

"Furthermore, we endorse all suggestions made by 'BEEstreetz', whilst suggesting a change of our own:"

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person who is employed by as a law enforcement employee in a member state, and is acting in the course of during their tenure as a public-facing official tasked with and in exercise of law enforcement duties, and

"This suggestion is made to specify that this proposal would only apply to LEOs in exercise of their duties. Tenure does not immediately imply exercise, merely occupation of a role."