WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SD 1955

An Act banning the use of tear gas against civilians

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Becca Rausch

The bill bans tear gas against civilians and requires de-escalation planning, event-organizer communication, and mandatory reporting if rubber pellets or police dogs are used.

House concurred
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SD 1955

Summary: An Act banning the use of tear gas against civilians (Senate Docket No. 1955)

Purpose and intent

  • The bill seeks to prohibit the use of tear gas against civilians during civil events, with an emphasis on formal de-escalation planning and communication during planned mass demonstrations.
  • It aims to ensure police departments prioritize de-escalation and non-chemical means, and to create mandatory reporting and oversight if less-lethal force such as rubber pellets or police dogs is used.

Key provisions

  • Prohibition on tear gas

    • A police officer shall not discharge or order the discharge of tear gas or any other chemical weapon against civilians.

  • De-escalation and advance planning for mass demonstrations

    • When a police department has advance knowledge of a planned mass demonstration, the department must:
    • Communicate in good faith with event organizers to discuss logistics, strategies to avoid conflict, and communication needs between police and participants.
    • Develop plans to avoid and de-escalate potential conflicts.
    • Designate an officer in charge of de-escalation planning and internal communication of those plans.

  • Restrictions on rubber pellets and police dogs

    • The use or order to discharge rubber pellets or to release a police dog is prohibited unless:
    • De-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible in light of the circumstances; and
    • The measures used are necessary to prevent imminent harm and are proportionate to the threat.
    • If rubber pellets or a dog are used, the appointing agency must file a detailed report with the commission describing:
    • Pre-event measures to reduce disorder probability.
    • De-escalation tactics and other measures employed at the time of the event.
    • The commission may review the report, conduct further investigation, and issue findings on whether the pre-event and contemporaneous de-escalation tactics were adequate and whether the use of rubber pellets or a dog was justified.

  • Oversight and accountability

    • The commission retains authority to review and investigate the reports and to make findings regarding the adequacy and justification of the force used.
    • The exact identity of the commission is not specified in the excerpt, but it functions as the oversight body for these determinations.

Affected parties and impact

  • Law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts (police departments) and their standard operating procedures for mass demonstrations and crowd control.
  • Event organizers and participants in planned demonstrations, who will be part of the required de-escalation discussions and communications.
  • The commission (oversight body) responsible for reviewing de-escalation planning and force deployment or threats of force.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Bill details
    • Senate Docket: 1955; Senate No. 1758 (introduced as of January 17, 2025).
    • Title: An Act banning the use of tear gas against civilians.
    • Filed: January 17, 2025.
  • Legislative actions
    • February 27, 2025: Referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.
    • February 27, 2025: House concurred with Senate proposal (status indicates House concurrence).
  • Status
    • Classified as a proposed bill with House concurrence achieved; would advance to final approvals if not yet enacted.

Notable considerations

  • The bill imposes a clear prohibition on tear gas and imposes a structured framework for de-escalation and reporting when non-lethal force (rubber pellets or dogs) is contemplated or used.
  • It creates accountability through mandated reporting to the commission and potential investigative findings on the adequacy and justification of force actions.
  • No explicit funding or cost provisions are included in the text provided; implementation would likely require training, planning time, and changes to existing protocols.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.