S-1502-117
Became Public Law No: 117-60.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
This law prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing the contents of communications made during peer support counseling sessions — conversations between an officer and a trained peer support specialist. It also directs the Department of Justice to develop best practices and professional standards for how these peer support programs should be run across the country.
Who benefits
Law enforcement officers at the federal, state, and local level who use peer support counseling programs benefit directly, as their private communications gain legal confidentiality protections. Peer support specialists benefit from clearer professional standards. Law enforcement agencies benefit from DOJ guidance on building or improving their programs. Indirectly, communities may benefit if officer mental health support reduces stress-related misconduct or errors.
Who is hurt
Defendants in criminal cases or civil litigation involving officers may be negatively affected, as peer support communications that could otherwise be discoverable in legal proceedings would now be shielded from disclosure. Oversight bodies, internal affairs investigators, and journalists seeking accountability records could face new barriers to accessing information about officer conduct discussed in counseling sessions. Victims of alleged officer misconduct may find it harder to obtain relevant evidence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that law enforcement officers face uniquely high rates of trauma, stress, and suicide — and that without guaranteed confidentiality, officers will avoid seeking help out of fear that their disclosures could be used against them in court or disciplinary proceedings. They contend that peer support programs only work if officers trust them completely, and that this law removes a critical barrier to mental health care. Supporters also argue that the DOJ best-practices requirement ensures programs are run professionally and consistently, improving officer wellness nationwide and ultimately making policing safer for both officers and the public.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that broad confidentiality protections for officer communications could shield evidence of misconduct, excessive force, or criminal behavior from courts, oversight bodies, and the public. They contend that when an officer discloses wrongdoing — their own or a colleague's — during a counseling session, that information should not be categorically protected from legal discovery. Opponents also argue that the law creates an accountability gap unique to law enforcement, since most professions do not receive statutory confidentiality for peer counseling, and that victims of officer misconduct deserve access to all relevant evidence when seeking justice.
Constitutional context
The law implicates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as confidentiality protections could affect a defendant's ability to compel disclosure of officer communications under the Compulsory Process Clause, and may intersect with Brady v. Maryland obligations requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections are relevant if shielded communications contain evidence material to a defendant's case. The Fourth Amendment and Carpenter v. US (2018) are less directly implicated, though the broader question of what communications government actors may shield from legal process remains an active area of law.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the Department of Justice — gains new rulemaking and standard-setting authority to define best practices for peer support programs across law enforcement agencies. Congress retains oversight through its appropriations and oversight powers. Courts retain authority to interpret the scope of the confidentiality prohibition, including any exceptions, in the context of criminal discovery and civil litigation.
Historical precedent
Many states have enacted peer support confidentiality statutes for first responders (e.g., California, Texas, New York). Federal legislation extending similar protections to law enforcement nationally is a newer development, building on the state-level model.