An Act relative to the reckless evasion of a police officer
Take action
Take a stance or write a position on this measure.
Create an account to take a stance, submit a written position, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill seeks to establish a specific criminal offense for recklessly evading a police officer. It aims to clarify the legal definition of ‘reckless evasion’ and increase penalties for such behavior, which currently may not be adequately addressed under existing law. The bill intends to ensure that officers are protected and that dangerous driving behavior that endangers public safety is appropriately addressed. It builds upon previous attempts to address this issue in Massachusetts.
Key provisions
- Defines ‘reckless evasion’ as a specific act of evading a police officer with willful disregard for safety.
- Creates a new criminal offense for reckless evasion, potentially with enhanced penalties.
- Addresses situations where a driver intentionally flees a police officer’s attempt to initiate a traffic stop.
- Clarifies the legal standard for determining whether a driver’s actions constitute reckless evasion.
- May include provisions related to the use of force by law enforcement in such situations.
Who is affected
- Law enforcement officers
- Motorists
- The general public
- The judicial system
Notable changes
- Introduces a new specific criminal offense for reckless evasion of a police officer.
- Potentially strengthens penalties for offenses related to fleeing police officers.
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
2 on record
Primary sponsor
William C. Galvin
Cosponsor
William C. Galvin
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours