S.B. 67 Law Enforcement Quota Amendments

What this bill does

The bill bars law enforcement agencies from requiring officers to meet a set number or percentage of citations, and it makes agencies that break this ban ineligible for state grants. It defines a quota that way, excludes grant-funded targeted overtime shifts, and keeps officers from being disciplined for not writing enough tickets.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 4 yes, 0 no, 5 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 8 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Public Utilities and Energy Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 2, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
• Feb 18, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
• Feb 20, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)35:53

     Senator Weiler SB 67 Law Enforcement quota Amendments. Whenever you're ready. Time is yours.

  2. Sen. Todd Weiler36:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. This, I, this bill is, I think exactly the same as the bill that the Senate passed last year. I, if it wasn't unanimous, it was nearly unanimous and, uh, and then it just didn't get through, um, the house. Um, so about seven years ago, it could have been six, but I think it was seven years ago. Um, we worked on a bill, um, as a matter of policy, um, and set in the bill that we didn't want police officers to have to meet a certain quota. Um, now we do want police officers to work. Uh, we don't want them to park on the side of the road and watch Netflix all day, which I'm, I've been told by some police chief happens, and we want them to have, you know, some way of, uh, doing a metrics. But we don't want a police officer at the end of his shift saying, oh my gosh, I've gotta write one more ticket. Because, um, I don't think we want anyone to wonder if after they were given a citation, if they really deserve the citation or if the officer was just had a quota that they had to meet that day. And it was interesting, Mr. Chair, because I was involved in that bill six or seven years ago, and we had some law enforcement come up and ask for some language kind of at the end of the process, they added a sentence to the bill. And then we got report after report after report that, uh, some law enforcement agencies were still using the quota system. And some of them called them point-based systems. They tried to avoid the word quota, and then they would point to the language that they had added to, to basically, um, justify what they were doing. And so this is, I think, the third year that we've had a bill to try to attach, um, like, uh, a consequence, uh, to that. And the only real consequence that we have is to say that if you're violating that law or policy, um, that you, um, that you wouldn't be able to qualify for grants, um, uh, from the state. So that's what this does. Um, I have spoken to, um, former cops who left agencies because of quotas after our bill. Um, so anyone that says this didn't happen, I, I know it did happen. Um, we, we've had multiple news report agencies on it. Um, and I am, I'm, I'm pretty confident as of today, uh, that it's not happening. And, and part of that is because of the pressure that, uh, the legisl, some legislators like myself have, have put to this issue. But I do believe that the policy we made six or seven years ago was the correct one. And I do believe that if we don't attach a consequence to it, that it will creep back in. So even though I don't have one agency right now that I'm gonna point out and say it's this agency that's doing it, I, I do think that we need the, we need the proper incentives in the, in, in the law. Um, and so what this does is in lines, uh, starting in lines one 40. It says, an impermissible quota means a requirement or minimum standard regarding the number or percentage of citations made by a law enforcement officer. An impermissible quota does not include targeted overtime shifts for which a law enforcement agency receives grant money or other reimbursement. And then, um, uh, beginning in lines 1 49 through the end, um, it basically says that a, a political subdivision or a law enforcement agency may not require that an officer, uh, meet an impermissible quota, uh, uh, evaluate, promote, compensate, reward or discipline a peace officer on the basis of an impermissible quota, or transfer a p peace officer's employment assignment on the basis of an impermissible quota. And then, um, and lines 1 55 subsection two does not prohibit a political subdivision or law enforcement agency from including a peace officer's engagement with the community or enforcement activity, including the metric based on the peace officer's interactions with members of the community. I think that's very important because, um, if an officer has to report their interactions, that means if they decide to give a warning, and I've received warnings, I'm not a perfect driving, they don't get penalized for issuing a warning versus a ticket. And so, um, this is a concession we made last year, uh, that they can measure interactions. Um, and so, um, you know, if Senator Balderree gets pulled over and they say, you know, I don't know if you notice, but your, your sticker on your license plate expired, you know, two months ago, and, uh, you really need to get that fixed. And she says, oh gosh, I've been really busy with the legislative session. So we don't want that officer to have to write a ticket to get credit for that, that stop. We want them to be able to, to give that warning. Um, and, um, it, it says a person may report a violation to the, uh, uh, state commission on criminal and juvenile justice. Um, There is some language in 1 23 that talks about submitting a report to CCJJ. And it looks like we did take out the consequence of the grant. So I think this was a concession we made last year. This is the same bill we had last year. And that concludes my presentation.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)41:17

     Thanks Mr. Weiler. We'll, or Senator Weiler, we'll come back to the committee for clarifying questions.

  4. Unknown committee member41:22speaker not certain

     Um, I don't seem to get warnings, so maybe you're more recognizable as a senator than me. I don't know. I don't get 'em. Um, I just get the ticket. I can't share all my secrets in this presentation. Um, nonetheless, just just to, just to clarify, and I think you've made it abundant clear, and this, this reminds me of the, the bill from last year and, and all the adjustments that you made to make it land, right. But just as far as the word impermissible, just to be kind of rubber meets the road. So you, you, you, it would be illegal or against code if, um, if, if a, uh, department were to declare you have to write 20 tickets per week, right?

  5. Sen. Todd Weiler42:00

     Yes. That would be impermissible. Yeah. Okay.

  6. Unknown committee member42:02speaker not certain

     And they couldn't be disciplined if they didn't write enough tickets.

  7. Sen. Todd Weiler42:04

     That's correct. That's right. Okay. All right.

  8. Unknown committee member42:07speaker not certain

     Now they could be disciplined if they didn't have any enough interactions. Fair enough. Um, and again, this is the, the Netflix thing, you know, and, and apparently some officers have just parked on the side of the road and watch Netflix all day. And, and I agree that's, that's a problem. You know, that's not helping anybody. It might help a little bit 'cause someone sees a cop car and they hit, hit their brakes. But, um, that's what I do at least. So. Oh, breaks, that's the key. Okay. All right.

  9. Committee chair (presiding)42:34

     Um, there's no sub on this, so, uh, is there any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Is anybody from the public like to speak to this? Seeing none here, but we do have one online. We'll go to, excuse me. Nate. Nate Butters mu muts. Sorry. Make sure he has a tie on. Nate, if you got your camera on, just state your name for the record. Oh, he does. And where you're from and the time is yours.

  10. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee43:05

      Yes. Uh, thank you chair, uh, pro tem and, and, uh, committee, uh, Nate Mutter, um, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, uh, coming to you from Davis County. Uh, I just want to, uh, just put on record that, that the law enforcement community, uh, we appreciate Senator Wilder's, um, willingness to work with us, uh, last year to, to get the, uh, the bill where it is. Um, currently, uh, although our, our, our group remains neutral, uh, again, we just wanted to, to recognize Senator Weiler and his willingness to work with us. Thank you.

  11. Committee chair (presiding)43:41

      Thank you. That concludes our public comment. Come back to committee for any committee action. There is no sub on the system. So we're on the base bill, SB 67, law Enforcement Court of Requirements, Senator Baldry.

  12. Sen. Heidi Balderree43:52

      Uh, I move that we pass out with the favorable recommendation Senate bill 67 to the full body of the Senate.

  13. Committee chair (presiding)43:57

      That motion is in order. I will place the motion is to favorably recommend SB 67 law enforcement quota amendments. Any dis would you like to speak to that motion? Rather?

  14. Unknown committee member44:07speaker not certain

      I'll waive Any discussion to that motion.

  15. Committee chair (presiding)44:10

      Seeing none, I'll go to the sponsor for some, I'll Waive Back to the maker of the motion. Would you waive summ motion?

  16. Sen. Heidi Balderree44:16

      I'll waive, I'll restate the motion. Motion of motion is to favorably recommend SB 67 Law enforcement quota of amendments.

  17. Committee chair (presiding)44:24

      All those in favor say aye. A Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none in opposition. I rule that motion passed unanimously. The bill is passed.

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Todd Weiler56:59

     President, uh, Senate Bill 67 is identical to a bill that the Senate passed last year, but it didn't quite make it through the house. This prohibits law enforcement agencies from requiring or using ticket quotas for arrests or arrests for citations, uh, reinforcing fair and unbiased, uh, profiling policies. It does not, uh, prohibit law enforcement from requiring, uh, a certain number of engagements so they could. So in this, if they give a warning, they'll get the same credit as if they'd given a ticket. The purpose of this is we don't want officers being forced to write tickets that just, just so that they can meet their quota for that day, that week or that month. And with that, I'll yield to any questions. You can do a call if you need. Thanks. Okay.

  2. Senate President Adams (presiding)57:46

     I'll come to you. Thank you, Senator for the presentation. Looking for questions. Seeing none. I'm gonna go to you for a motion.

  3. Unknown speaker57:56speaker not certain

     Thank you. I move that Senate Bill 67, be read for a third time.

  4. Senate President Adams (presiding)58:00

     Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate bill 67 be read a third time? Roll call vote.

  5. Senate clerk (roll call)58:05

     Senator Vickers. Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Bramer Bus Palmore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson, Do you want Johnson Quan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Cher plum Re. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton Escamilla President Adams Aye.

  6. Senate President Adams (presiding)58:58

     Senate bill 67, having received 25 yay votes, zero nay votes. Four being absent shall be read A third time. Senator Mikel,

• Feb 27, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Sen. Todd Weiler26:05

     law enforcement agencies from requiring or using ticket quotas for arrest citations, reinforcing affair and unbiased uh, policing practice. Uh, with that I'll yield to any questions.

  2. Presiding officer26:17

     Thank you for the presentation. Is there a discussion to this bill? Say none.

  3. Presiding officer26:24

     Senator Cullimore back to you for summation and motion. I

  4. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore26:28

     Move that Senate Bill 67 pass And the question is, shall Senate bill

  5. Presiding officer26:31

     67 pass roll co vote.

  6. Unknown speaker26:33speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldy flew in grammar bus. Aye. Colmore es Camilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay McKay Mikel Milner Musman Owens picture Aye. Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  7. Presiding officer27:30

     Senate Bill 67 having received 25 VA votes, zero na votes four being absent passes the Senate be Senate to the House for further consideration.

  8. Presiding officer27:45

     Senator Mikel, Senator Mikel Got an amendment online.

  9. Sen. Michael K. McKell27:49speaker not certain

     So I'd like to move an amendment.

• Mar 2, 2026 House Public Utilities and Energy Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Committee chair50:15

     SB 67 law enforcement quota amendments. Time is yours.

  2. Sen. Todd Weiler50:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this bill actually passed, um, I think, uh, unanimously last session, but it was one of those bills on that last night that it didn't quite make it through. Um, but just as a bit of history in 2018, we adopted a policy that we didn't want our law enforcement agencies to have quotas. Um, and we want them to write tickets when they're justified. We don't want them to say, oh gosh, I've got an hour left on this shift, so I gotta find somebody to give a ticket to. And I think that's the right policy. I think a lot of states have adopted policies along these lines. And so we passed that in 2018. We pat ourselves on the back, good job legislature. And then we kept on hearing complaints that there were still quotas. And, um, I, I'm happy to tell you. And, um, there's a certain reporter who really doggedly followed this. I'm happy to say as of today, I'm not aware of any. I I couldn't say that two years ago. Um, and some, some of them said, well, we don't have a quota system. We have a point based system and, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah. But this, this bill is a consensus bill. I had a, I had a bill, uh, I think two sessions ago that would've had, um, uh, the opportunity, well, uh, a police agency could have lost their rights to get grants from the state if they, if they violated this bill also recognizes that they can still have a metric system for citizen interactions. And one of the things, so basically if you get pulled over, the police officer gets as much credit, um, from his department, whether he, he or she gives you a warning or a ticket, but there's like no incentive to make sure it's a ticket. And so I've learned a couple things running this bill and operating this space. First of all, a lot of police officers, they don't, they don't like to write tickets. They don't wanna ruin everybody's day all day long and then go home and kick their dog. Um, number two is a lot of them will quit. So the reason we knew that one particular agency was still having a quota is because officers were quitting and they were calling legislators and they were calling the media and complaining that they had to write so many tickets or else they could get disciplined. Um, and the other thing I learned is that some cops, and this is gonna shock you are lazy, and they would rather sit, park their car and watch Netflix all day. Um, and, you know, um, uh, and, and so that's why the police chiefs are saying, we need some metric. And so this does allow citizen interactions to be counted. Um, and, and the last thing I'll say, and I'll end it there, is I got pulled over about, um, 13 years ago, and it was right before Christmas. It was a Sunday morning. I was coming down a big hill from Bountiful i'd, I'd gone to somebody's house and, um, picked up a Christmas gift from my wife. And I wasn't really in a hurry, but I was going downhill. And I got pulled over and the Bountiful officer did not know who I was. I was, um, like a freshman legislator, but was so nice and gave me a warning. Um, not because, you know, I'm like a VIP or something. He didn't know who I was. But, um, I have thought about that probably a hundred times every time I drive down that road. And I think that that was probably more effective than if I'd had just gotten a ticket and paid it. And so I, I just share that because I, I do think that warnings are not useless interactions. I think they're very, um, you know, can be very positive interactions like that one was for me. Now, I've also gotten plenty of tickets. I don't wanna pretend otherwise I have a little bit of a lead foot, but my bill basically, um, adds a little bit to the policy that we had in 2018. And we just want, um, everyone including police departments to follow the law. So that's my presentation.

  3. Committee chair53:54

     Thank you, Senator. Um, we'll come back to the committee for clarifying questions, not seeing any questions from members of the committee. Do we have anybody online or any, how about in the public that would like to speak to this? All right. Not seeing any public comment that needs to be made, we'll pull it back to the committee for further action. Chair, Jack.

  4. Rep. Colin W. Jack54:16

     Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I would make a motion that we pass out SB 0 0 6 7 law enforcement quota amendments with a favorable recommendation.

  5. Committee chair54:28

     All right. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  6. Rep. Colin W. Jack54:31

     I'll waive. Alright. I'm assuming that's a favorable recommendation from Yes. I'll waive.

  7. Committee chair54:37

     Thank you. All right, we're gonna go to members of the committee. Representative Chu.

  8. Unknown speaker (introduced as Representative Chu)54:43

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, uh, when, uh, the, the good Senator, uh, gave us an example about something that happened to him, why I couldn't help but reflect upon one that, that happened to me when I was a, a, a kid in high school, and I'd like the officer in the back of the, the room to, to listen to this to see if he's ever had the opportunity that, that, uh, happened to me. When I, when I was a, a senior in high school, we were, you know, like a lot of seniors we thought we had knew everything. And, uh, we went out downtown one time. Uh, my, my friend had, there was four guys. They all had motorcycles and, and my buddy had one. And, uh, we all got on their motorcycles and went downtown to, to get us a, uh, a hamburger instead of going to school lunch. And when we came back, why, uh, back when I was in, I don't know what the rules are now, but we were supposed to have helmets when we, if we were over 35 mile an hour, uh, went on a portion of the highway, had 45 and, uh, we should have had helmets on anyway, uh, a good friend of of my dad's that was, that came out to the ranch and hunt, uh, hunted, uh, geese on our ranch, was the sergeant of the highway patrol in our area. And he, he followed us and pulled us over right in front of school, made us all get off the motorcycles, and, uh, we got on the, we're standing on the lawn and he made us bend over and he kicked our butts and told us to quit doing things that were wrong. And I think that done us more good than a warning would've. And I was just curious, uh, as a officer in the, in the back, ever pulled somebody over and felt like a good swift kick in the pants, would've probably done him some good. I would, I would say he, he probably would've liked to. You got a thumb done at a time or two. Yeah. Anyway, it did do us some good. And I'm, I would venture a guess that every one of us, uh, five guys that were standing on the front lawn and the rest of the student body seen that happen to us, has a similar memory of it. They might have it a little differently worded than I did, but, uh, uh, you know, I don't know whether he had a quota back then or not, but, uh, he certainly got, uh, his money's worth that day. Thank you for that, uh, enlightening story. I like that.

  9. Committee chair57:01

     We're gonna go to Representative Albright.

  10. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht57:03

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I was just wondering if the good senator paid that bill by mail that ticket, or if he defended himself. It, it, um, I've, so that particular time I got a warning, but I've, I've paid all of my tickets by, uh, usually just with a, uh, usually just pay 'em. In fact, as a lawyer, I get a lot of people who ask me for advice on speeding tickets. And I say, here's the advice, get out your checkbook and pay the tickets. So anyway, it's cheaper than anything an attorney can do for them.

  11. Committee chair57:35

      Alright. Seeing no other discussion from members of the committee, we're gonna go back to the sponsors to some I'll, I'll waive. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And back to the maker of the motion.

  12. Rep. Colin W. Jack57:44

      I'll waive. All right.

  13. Committee chair57:46

      The motion before us is that we pass with a favorable recommendation, SB 67 law enforcement quota amendments. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes unanimously.

  14. Rep. Colin W. Jack58:00speaker not certain

      Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

  15. Committee chair58:02

      Alright, that being said, I'd entertain one more motion. I'd like AUR to make a motion, but make a comment first. Alright. Go ahead.

  16. Rep. Colin W. Jack58:10

      Thank you, committee. It's been a wonderful, it's been a wonderful, uh, session. I've enjoyed working with all of you, and so thanks for all your hard work. It's been a great committee. I wouldn't trade you. And then I make a motion to adjourn. I would agree. I it's a lot of hard work. Appreciate all your involvement.

  17. Committee chair58:28

      So with that, we have a motion to adjourn non debatable motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. We are adjourned.