34 U.S.C. § 20927 — Failure of jurisdiction to comply

(a) In general: For any budget year after the implementation deadline passes, if the Attorney General decides a jurisdiction has not substantially put this subchapter into effect, that jurisdiction loses 10 percent of the money it would otherwise get that year under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. (b) State constitutionality: (1) In general: When deciding whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this subchapter, the Attorney General must consider whether the jurisdiction truly cannot do so because following certain provisions would violate its own constitution — as ruled by the jurisdiction's highest court. (2) Efforts: If that happens, the Attorney General and the jurisdiction must both try in good faith to reach substantial implementation and work out any conflict between this subchapter and the jurisdiction's constitution. The Attorney General must talk with the jurisdiction's chief executive and chief legal officer about how the jurisdiction's constitution has been interpreted and ruled on. (3) Alternative procedures: If a constitutional limit still stops the jurisdiction from substantially implementing this subchapter, the Attorney General can treat the jurisdiction as compliant if it has adopted, or is in the process of adopting, reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations that fit the purposes of this chapter. (4) Funding reduction: If the jurisdiction does not follow through on those alternative procedures, it faces the same funding cut described in subsection (a). (c) Reallocation: Money that a jurisdiction loses for failing to substantially implement this subchapter does not disappear. It goes instead to jurisdictions that did not fail to implement it. Alternatively, it may go back to the very jurisdiction it was withheld from, but only to help that jurisdiction finish implementing this subchapter. (d) Rule of construction: This subchapter's directions to jurisdictions and their officials are not federal commands that override state law. For states, they are only conditions a state must meet to avoid losing federal funding under this section.