Skip to main content
H7753AViolent Crime Penalties

Criminal Offenses - Disarming a Peace Officer

This bill makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to disarm a police officer.

Introduced33 Yea5 Nay0 Not voting
Population
Affected
15
Email Legislator
Introduced Feb 12, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This bill makes it a felony to disarm or attempt to disarm a police officer or an investigator for the attorney general. It applies when someone knowingly takes or tries to take an officer's firearm, deadly weapon, or less-lethal weapons like tasers, pepper spray, or batons. It also makes it a felony to take or try to take an officer's radio or mobile communication device while they are performing their official duties. The penalty for committing this crime is up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

For younger readers

This bill makes it a serious crime to take or try to take a weapon away from a police officer. This includes guns, as well as things like pepper spray or tasers. It is also a crime to take the radio or phone an officer uses to call for help while they are working. If someone breaks this rule, they could go to jail for up to five years or have to pay a fine of up to $5,000.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Police officersCriminal defendantsProtestersAttorney General investigatorsLaw enforcement agencies
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

There is a minor constitutional risk regarding due process and overbreadth, specifically with the "attempt to deprive" language concerning a mobile communication device. This could theoretically be applied broadly to individuals who merely obstruct an officer's view or physically stand between an officer and their radio during a chaotic situation, like a protest. However, because it requires the person to "knowingly" attempt to deprive the officer, it is likely to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Estimated cost
Amount unknown
Estimated revenue
Amount unknown

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • May increase the safety of the community by preventing dangerous weapons, such as firearms or tasers, from falling into the hands of untrained individuals during physical altercations.
  • Clearly defines what constitutes disarming an officer, providing specific legal boundaries rather than relying on broader, potentially subjective charges like generalized assault on an officer.
  • Could potentially reduce the likelihood of police encounters escalating to fatal shootings, as officers might feel less immediate need to use lethal force if their less-lethal weapons are specifically protected by law.
  • Creates a new felony charge that could be used to heavily penalize individuals involved in chaotic protests or minor scuffles with police, exacerbating mass incarceration and disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.
  • The inclusion of "attempting" to deprive an officer of a communication device is highly subjective and could be easily abused by officers to justify felony arrests for minor resistance.
  • Fails to address the root causes of police-civilian altercations, focusing instead on punitive measures that expand the power, authority, and legal protections of law enforcement over civilians.
For Conservatives
  • Strongly supports the rule of law by providing severe, felony-level penalties for those who try to disarm, incapacitate, or interfere with police officers.
  • Protects law enforcement officers from physical harm and loss of control during arrests, ensuring they can safely execute their duties without dangerous interference.
  • Deters violent criminals and rioters from escalating physical confrontations with police by making the mere attempt to grab an officer's radio or taser a serious felony.
  • Expands the criminal code and government power by creating a new, specific felony rather than relying on existing laws regarding assault on a police officer or resisting arrest.
  • Could theoretically be used to charge citizens who are attempting to defend themselves against unlawful police violence or overreach if they grab an officer's weapon or radio in self-defense.
  • Imposes a relatively low maximum fine of $5,000 for a serious felony offense, which may be viewed as too lenient for the crime of disarming a law enforcement officer.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

2 versions
Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 8 additions

SECTION 1. Title 11 of the General Laws entitled "CRIMINAL OFFENSES" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following chapter: 11-71-1. Disarming a peace officer. Any person who shall knowingly remove or attempt to remove a firearm, deadly weapon, or less-lethal weapon to include, but not limited to, any blunt impact, chemical or conducted energy device; or knowingly deprive or attempt to deprive the use of a mobile communication device or radio used in the performance of official duty, from the person of a peace officer as defined in § 12-7-21, or investigator of the department of attorney general appointed pursuant to § 42-9-8.1, shall be deemed to have committed a felony, and shall be punishable by up to five (5) years imprisonment and/or a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.