CT Senate Passes Police Reform Bill

CONNECTICUT — The state Senate started its one-day special session Tuesday as they work quickly to tackle four bills passed by the state House of Representatives last week. Three of the four bills are expected to passed in a bipartisan manner, but the police accountability bill was be the subject of much debate. The police bill passed 21-15 with all Republicans and one Democratic senator voting against it.

The police accountability bill passed largely on a partisan basis with Democratic legislators in favor and Republicans opposed. The final vote count in the House was 86-58 with seven absent or not voting. Legislators debated the bill largely during the overnight hours between Thursday and Friday in the marathon session.

Three of the four bills passed with unanimous or near-unanimous support in the Senate Tuesday.

Original post: There are two sections of the police accountability bill that have become the focus of attention. One section has to do with governmental immunity from lawsuits and the other has to do with the creation of an independent office to investigate police deadly use of force incidents.

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.

The bill was changed before passing to clarify that towns would have to cover lawsuit costs if police officers were personally sued, but they could seek reimbursement if the court found the officer’s actions to be malicious, wanton or a willful act. That largely reflects current law.

The Connecticut Council of Small Towns urged the Senate not to pass the bill because it could significantly raise liability and insurance costs for towns during uncertain economic times.

“As revised, the bill continues to weaken the qualified immunity provisions in the law, subjecting municipalities to increased liability and insurance costs," Betsy Gara, head of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, told Patch. "The bill was revised to clarify that police officers would not be personally liable for financial losses stemming from lawsuits against them. Instead, the bill provides that municipalities will be required to indemnify police officers for such financial losses and costs."

Senate Republican leader Len Fasano asked to delay the vote on the police accountability bill after Attorney General William Tong declined to provide legislators with a formal opinion about the constitutionally of the bill, particularly on the issue of the inspector general office.

Fasano requested that Tong’s office provide a formal opinion on the constitutionality of the Office of Inspector General, which would be an independent body that focuses on investigating deadly police use of force incidents. Currently, state attorneys outside of the district where the incident occurred are assigned to investigate.

“Attorney General Tong states in his response to my request that he cannot provide a legal opinion on such complex constitutional matters in such a short period of time,” Fasano wrote to the Senate president pro tempore and majority leader. “Lawmakers are being asked to vote on the same issue in the same period of time and make a legislative proposal state law. If there is not enough time for a formal opinion, how can there be enough time for the Senate to accurately analyze and vote on this bill without the needed legal guidance,”

“This issue is too important to risk passing something that is unconstitutional,” Fasano continued. “Without a full legal opinion it would be irresponsible to move forward at this time.”

Tong wrote in his response to Fasano that his office can’t provide a legal opinion on complex matters of constitutional law on a quick turnaround. Instead, Tong’s office provided an informal review of the bill.

“Based upon my Office’s informal review, I am comfortable that the Inspector General Provisions of HB 6004 are constitutional,” Tong wrote. I am prepared to defend them in court should the bill be enacted into law as currently drafted.”

The informal review found that the proposed Office of Inspector General would be constitutional because it would still be part of the Division of Criminal Justice, Tong wrote.
The attorneys working in the office would have to be nominated by the Commission on Criminal Justice and then approved by the state legislature, Tong wrote.

“For that reason, the legislature’s appointment of the Inspector General is an action subsequent to the Commission’s original appointment and would not appear to be a significant interference with the Commission’s constitutional prerogative,” Tong wrote.

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.