CT Police Reform Bill Would Make Major Changes To Law Enforcement

CONNECTICUT — Public hearings have officially begun on a state legislature bill that would bring about major police reform if passed.

The legislative judicial committee is holding a 12-hour listening session on a police accountability bill Friday. A special legislative session is scheduled for July to tackle the bill and other matters including absentee ballot use during the November presidential election.

The wide-ranging police reform bill would make changes to justified use of deadly force by police officers, traffic stops, and would subject police officers to potential criminal penalties if they don’t intervene when another officer is using excessive force.

It would also empower the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council to cancel or revoke an officer’s police powers if they use excessive force or their conduct undermines public confidence in law enforcement.

Judiciary Committee Co-chair State Sen. Gary Winfield was heavily involved in the state’s 2015 and 2019 police reform bills. He said throughout the years he’s heard from several people that the state already has tools to make more reform possible.

“While those tools have been on the table, those actions haven’t been taken,” he said.

The Office of Legislative Research released a 38-page summary of the bill that spells out what sections of the bill would mean if they were passed.

Decertifying Officers

The bill would allow the Police Officer Standards and Training Council to cancel or revoke a police officer’s certification for conduct undermining public confidence in law enforcement or excessive force. POST decisions could be appealed to the state Superior Court. In effect an officer who loses their certification wouldn’t be able to continue being a police officer.

This is different than when a police officer is fired by a town. Police in Connecticut can appeal termination decisions to an arbitrator who would affirm or overturn the decision.

The bill would also prohibit any decertified police officers from obtaining a security service or security officer license.

Qualified Immunity

The bill essentially would eliminate the possibility of police claiming qualified or governmental immunity when sued if they deprive an individual or class of individuals of equal protection under state law.

The immunity defense couldn’t be used if a, “...police officer, acting alone or in conspiracy with another, or any other individual acting under color of state law, shall deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws of this state, or of the equal privileges and immunities under the laws of this state, including, without limitation, the protections, privileges and immunities guaranteed under article first of the Constitution of the state.”

Under current law interpretation government officials and employees can claim qualified immunity so long as their conduct is done, ““in good faith, in the exercise of an honest judgment, and not in abuse of discretion, or maliciously or wantonly…”

This portion of the bill has caused some concern among law enforcement officials in the state. The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and representatives from the State police union voiced concern in testimony on the bill Friday.

“If this portion of the bill is passed police officers will fail to act as necessary for fear of being sued and no police officer, we believe will risk their physical or financial stability for an employer who will not stand by them and defend them when they need to,” said Andrew Matthews, executive director of the State police union.

“The elimination of this protection will make recruitment and retention even harder and it will ultimately foist the cost of reasonable police errors upon the citizenry in terms of higher tax dollars to pay associated civil court judgements and attorney’s fees,” said Darren Stewart president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and chief of the Stonington Police Department.

Proponents of the bill argue that it would hold police officers personally accountable for illegal actions.

“If we hold doctors accountable for malpractice, should we not hold our police officers to a higher standard?” said State Rep. Brandon McGee Jr. (D-Hartford). “In the end, if the police aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to be afraid of right?”

Body cameras for all officers

The bill would require all local police to use body cameras and most police would also have to use dashboard cameras in vehicles.

Mental health

Police officers would be required to receive a mental health assessment at least once every five years.

Training

Police officers will have to receive implicit bias training. Implicit bias are unconscious stereotypes that can affect a person’s behavior toward another person.

Restrictions on collective bargaining agreements for State police

The state would be prohibited from blocking disclosure of certain personnel files for troopers as part of a collective bargaining agreement. The state legislature approved an agreement with the state police union that can block certain Freedom of Information requests, including unsubstantiated internal investigations. The bill would undo the disclosure protection.

The recent agreement caused concern among police transparency advocates since the State police handle their own internal investigations and would be the authority on whether those reports could be released.

The State police union is against this section of the bill. Matthews said the state should stand by its previous agreement with the state and that language was put into the contract due to false anonymous complaints.

Narrower definition for justified use of deadly force

Under current law police can use deadly force when they reasonably believe that it is needed to defend themselves or others from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
Police can also use deadly physical force to arrest a person or prevent their escape if the reasonably believe a felony was committed that led to serious physical injury or the threat of serious physical injury.

The bill would require officer actions to be “objectively reasonable given the circumstances.” Such as whether the person was in possession or appeared to be in possession of a deadly weapon.

Officers would have to engage in reasonable de-escalation measures before using deadly physical force.

An officer’s prior actions would also be taken into account. Deadly force wouldn’t be justified if the officer’s actions led to an increased risk of a situation where deadly force was needed.

Officers attempting to arrest or prevent the escape of a person must exhaust all reasonable alternatives and reasonably believe that the deadly force won’t create substantial risk of injury to a third party.

Duty to intervene

Officers have a duty to intervene if another officer is using excessive force; POST regulations already require it, but the law would codify it in state statute and raise the possibility of criminal penalties.

A witnessing officer must also report the incident as soon as practicable. Officers who don’t report can be charged with first or second degree hindering of prosecution.

Officers who report an excessive force case are protected under whistle-blowing laws.

Civilian review boards

Towns would be able to establish their own civilian review boards by ordinance. Civilian review boards act as an external investigative authority for police conduct.

Social workers

Local police departments will have to evaluate the feasibility of having social workers accompany police officers on certain calls for assistance.

Consent searches during traffic stops

The bill would prohibit consent searches when a motorist is stopped solely for a motor vehicle violation. Under current law police can search a vehicle or motorist if there is probable cause into criminal activity or if the motorist consents to the search.

Probable cause would have to exist in order for an officer to search the motorist or vehicle if the bill is passed.

Increased penalties for people falsely reporting incidents

The bill would raise the penalties for falsely reporting an incident when committed with the specific intent due to a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

It would also raise the penalty for misusing 911 system based on bigotry or bias from a class B to a class A misdemeanor.

Annual use of force reports

Law enforcement agencies must annually submit reports about use of force. This is already done under current law, but the bill would require data to be submitted in a standardized method that would allow statistics to be compiled easily by the state. Reports must include the race and gender of the person who physical force was used upon, the number of times force was used on the person and any injury the person sustained.

An independent office within the state’s Division of Criminal Justice will investigate police officer use of force cases and prosecute any cases where force wasn’t justified. The office will also prosecute when police fail to intervene or report such an incident.

Currently, deadly physical force cases are investigating by prosecutors in a district outside of where the incident occurred.

Military equipment

The bill would generally prohibit law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment such as mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, night vision devices and small arms.

Additionally, any military equipment already possessed by law enforcement agencies in the state would have to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of items within six months of the bill’s passage.

Agencies can ask for exemptions for certain vehicles that can be used for disaster or rescue purposes, but exemptions require the approval of the governor and state Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.