Jackson County Considers Ordinances to Increase Law Enforcement Accountability

Proposed measures would require officers to display faces and badges, and prevent detention centers from operating in the county.

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Jackson County lawmakers are considering two ordinances that aim to increase law enforcement accountability and potentially restrict detention facilities in the county. One ordinance would require law enforcement officers performing official duties to keep both their faces and badges visible to the public, with some exemptions. The other ordinance would prevent detention centers from operating within Jackson County. The measures are being considered together, with the goal of improving transparency and accountability.

Why it matters

These proposed ordinances come in the wake of incidents involving law enforcement misconduct and harm to community members, particularly marginalized groups. Supporters believe the measures are crucial for communities that have experienced harm at the hands of law enforcement, as it would make it easier to report misconduct. However, some officials have expressed skepticism about the ordinances' effectiveness and enforceability.

The details

Ordinance 6050, renamed the Renee Nicole Macklin Good Transparency and Accountability Ordinance, would require law enforcement officers to keep their faces and badges visible, with exemptions for undercover assignments, tactical operations, medical equipment requirements, and other urgent situations. Ordinance 6061 aims to prevent detention centers from operating within Jackson County. The two ordinances are being considered together. Supporters say the goal is to increase accountability, while critics argue the measures may be unenforceable and could hinder officers' ability to protect their identities when necessary.

  • The ordinances were first introduced in December 2025 and January 2026, respectively.
  • A public hearing on the ordinances will be held during the Jackson County Legislature's meeting on Monday, March 2, 2026.

The players

Manny Abarca

Jackson County Legislature Chairman, who introduced the two ordinances.

Renee Nicole Macklin

A 37-year-old woman who was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on January 7 in Minneapolis, after whom the Transparency and Accountability Ordinance is named.

Lauren Bonds

Executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, who said the ordinances are crucial for communities that have experienced harm at the hands of law enforcement.

Sean Smith

6th District legislator, who expressed skepticism about the ordinances' effectiveness and enforceability.

Darryl Forté

Jackson County Sheriff, who called the measure government overreach and said deputies must retain the discretion to use protective equipment and tactics based on the totality of circumstances.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The goal is accountability. It's not to go after undercover cops or anything like that. This is to keep people safe and to keep officers safe.”

— Manny Abarca, Jackson County Legislature Chairman (kshb.com)

“It's really hard to report misconduct if you don't know the officer that is responsible for the harm.”

— Lauren Bonds, Executive Director, National Police Accountability Project (kshb.com)

“We've heard from the sheriff's department and the prosecutor that it's probably not legally enforceable and that they wouldn't enforce it.”

— Sean Smith, 6th District Legislator (kshb.com)

“Deputies must retain the discretion to use protective equipment and tactics based on the totality of circumstances.”

— Darryl Forté, Jackson County Sheriff (kshb.com)

What’s next

A public hearing on Ordinances 6050 and 6061 will be held during the Jackson County Legislature's meeting on Monday, March 2, 2026, before legislators consider making any changes.

The takeaway

These proposed ordinances highlight the ongoing debate around law enforcement accountability and transparency, as communities seek to address incidents of misconduct and harm, while law enforcement officials argue for the need to maintain certain protections and discretion. The outcome of the public hearing and subsequent legislative actions will be closely watched by both supporters and critics of the measures.