§ 6-5-338.2 — Immunity of Law Enforcement Officers -- Civil Liability

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a law enforcement officer shall be immune from any claim that seeks to impose civil liability on the law enforcement officer for conduct performed within a law enforcement officer’s discretionary authority.
(b) A law enforcement officer shall not be immune in either of the following circumstances:
(1) The conduct constitutes a tort against the plaintiff that is actionable under the laws of this state and the law enforcement officer acted recklessly without law enforcement justification.
(2) The conduct constitutes a tort against the plaintiff that is actionable under the laws of this state and the conduct violated a clearly established state statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff of which every reasonable law enforcement officer would have known at the time of the law enforcement officer’s conduct.
(c) Notwithstanding the exceptions to immunity provided in subsection (b), the immunity provided in Section 36-1-12(c) is available to a law enforcement officer subject to the exceptions set forth in Section 36-1-12(d) and subject to the provisions of this section, Section 6-5-338.3, and Section 6-5-338.4. A law enforcement officer, as defined in Section 6-5-338.1, shall be considered an officer, agent, or employee of the state for purposes of Section 36-1-12.
(d) In any civil action against a law enforcement officer in his or her personal or individual capacity premised on conduct performed within the law enforcement officer’s discretionary authority, the complaint must identify with particularity, for each defendant and for each claim, each of the following:
(1) The legal authority that assertedly creates the claim against the law enforcement officer.
(2) Specific factual allegations to satisfy each element of each asserted claim.
(3) Specific factual allegations demonstrating that the law enforcement officer lacks immunity pursuant to subsection (a).
(e) In any civil action against a law enforcement officer in his or her personal or individual capacity premised on conduct performed within the law enforcement officer’s discretionary authority, the court shall promptly dismiss any claim for which either of the following is true:
(1) The complaint lacks the legal and factual particularity required under subsection (d), as long as the law enforcement officer, or his or her employer or appointing authority, has complied with any valid discovery request made pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)c. or paragraph (f)(2)d. in compliance with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure which was validly served no later than 14 days after the law enforcement officer first appears or otherwise defends against the lawsuit.
(2) The complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, fail to overcome the immunity established by subsection (a).
(f)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (2), the pendency of a motion to dismiss pursuant to subsection (e) shall automatically stay the obligation of any party or non-party to make disclosures or respond to discovery requests of any kind.
(2) The automatic stay of discovery shall remain in effect during the pendency of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to subsection (e) and any mandamus petition filed pursuant to Section 6-5-338.3 except to the extent that one or more of the following circumstances exists:
a. The party seeking disclosure or discovery establishes that the motion to dismiss or mandamus petition is frivolous.
b. The party seeking disclosure or discovery establishes that an exception to the stay is necessary to prevent a failure or delay of justice within the meaning of Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a)(3).
c. The plaintiff seeks production of a written policy governing the law enforcement officer’s conduct at the time of a specific event described in the complaint.
d. The plaintiff seeks production of a law enforcement recording created at the time of a specific event described in the complaint and the plaintiff is someone to whom a custodial law enforcement agency has made a determination to disclose the recording under Section 36-21-213(a).
e. The parties agree to an exception to the stay of discovery.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to do any of the following:
a. Alter or amend any privilege, discovery protection, or other ground for nondisclosure under Section 12-21-3.1, the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other source of law.
b. Alter or amend any provision of law regarding disclosure of any writing, record, recording, or other document or communication in the possession of a public entity.
c. Preclude the entry of any protective order pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. A law enforcement recording shall not be produced except pursuant to a protective order protecting the law enforcement recording from public disclosure.
(4) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, during the pendency of the stay established by this section, the legal responsibilities of the parties concerning the preservation of evidence shall continue.
(g) A law enforcement officer may seek entry of dismissal or judgment as a matter of law, including summary judgment, on grounds that he or she is immune pursuant to subsection (a) as allowed under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
(h)(1) A law enforcement officer asserting immunity under subsection (a) bears the burden of establishing that the claim is premised on conduct performed within the law enforcement officer’s discretionary authority as that term is defined in Section 6-5-338.1.
(2) Once the law enforcement officer satisfies his or her burden under subdivision (1), the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the law enforcement officer committed a tort against the plaintiff that is actionable under the laws of this state and that the law enforcement officer is not immune pursuant to subsection (b).

Legislative History

(Act 2025-423, §1.)