CT Senate Passes Sweeping Police Reform Bill

CONNECTICUT — The state Senate passed a police reform bill in a 21-15 vote after a passionate, marathon debate Tuesday into Wednesday.

The bill was passed mostly along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against; the one exception being Sen. Joan Hartley (D-Waterbury), who voted against the bill. The bill passed the House last week and will now head to Gov. Ned Lamont's desk; he has indicated he plans to sign it into law.

One of the most controversial parts of the bill is a change in the governmental immunity defense when someone sues a police officer or town over allegations that rights were violated. Advocates of the change say it will give people a fair method to bring their grievances to court and will encourage towns to get rid of problem officers that could cost them money. Detractors worry it will lead to increased costs for towns to defend against frivolous lawsuits.

Part of the bill was revised in the House to clarify that police officers would not personally be held liable for lawsuit damages unless their actions were wanton, willful and malicious.

Some parts of the bill will go into effect in October and others will go into effect in July 2021.

Sen. Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), one of the chief architects of the bill, asked his fellow senators to consider that they do not just represent the constituents in their district, but those across Connecticut.

"There are people in communities in Connecticut who are telling you on a daily basis the relationship they have with police is not the relationship you have with police,” he said.

Winfield said that there are problems in policing, but that doesn't mean all police are bad and that the bill will help hold bad officers accountable and allow good officers to continue to do their jobs normally.

"The problem isn’t the good officers, the problem is that there are officers who have been given power and have been allowed to use that power, and we have pretended as if the system was going to check it, it doesn’t,” Winfield said.

Senate Republican leader Len Fasano, of North Haven, said while he agreed with many parts of the bill and the need for reform in general, some aspects of it may not achieve that goal. He expressed concern over the sections that handle immunity, the creation of the inspector general office and decertifying police officers.

"I really wanted to support it I really did, but I think by supporting it, it sends the wrong message, so I can’t support it,” he said.

Others were more critical, with Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) calling the bill "anti-police."

Some Democratic senators were on the fence about supporting the bill Tuesday into Wednesday, but ultimately decided to vote in favor of it. Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) said he tallied all the emails he received from constituents about the bill and found that it was essentially tied between those supporting and opposing it.

There is near-universal support for 80 percent of the bill, Maroney said. He counseled with his predecessor Gayle Slossberg, who told him not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

"We do not have a perfect bill, but we have a good bill," he said.

"While I have reservations about sections of the bill I thank Senator Winfield to for the possibility to improve those sections before they go into effect," he said.

Other parts of the bill

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.

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.

The bill does include some grant money for local police forces for body cameras, but it is anticipated to have a direct cost of at least $4 million annually for municipalities, according to the state Office of Fiscal Analysis.

Mental health

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

The estimated cost is $300 to $500 per officer, according to the state Office of Fiscal Analysis. The estimated cost for large cities is about $20,000 annually and $50,000 to $100,000 for state police.

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 they 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 deescalation measures before using deadly physical force.

An officer's prior actions leading up to the use of force 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 it's practical. 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 would 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 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 the 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.