CT House Passes Historic Police Reform Bill

CONNECTICUT — The state House of Representatives passed a sweeping police reform bill by an 86-58 margin Friday morning after a long and passionate overnight debate. The state Senate is scheduled to debate the bill next week. The wide-ranging bill covers government immunity for police, justified use of deadly force and would give more power to civilians to review police actions.

Republican legislators put forth an amendment that would have stripped the governmental immunity change from bill from the final draft, but it was defeated in a tie 72-72 vote, with seven legislators not voting.

The section proved to be the most contentious as municipal officials worried it would open them up to more lawsuits stemming from police actions and increase liability insurance. The government immunity defense could only be used if a, “...police officer had an objectively good faith belief that such officer's conduct did not violate the law.”

Legislators drafted some changes to the qualified immunity portion of the bill to clarify that police officers will not be personally liable for lawsuits so long as their conduct isn’t “malicious, wanton or willful,” which largely mirrors current law.

State Sen. Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), one of the chief architects of the bill, said in an emotional Facebook live video before the session started that one of his main hopes was his children wouldn’t have to deal with the same issues he has had to in his life.

“I want to be able to go home and say to my kids that I did everything I could so that you don’t have to live as I have lived, so you don’t have to listen to the nonsense that it’s better than it used to be,” Winfield said.

The issue of police accountability is also a hard line in the sand, he said.

“This is one of those issues you can’t be somewhere in the middle you are with us or you are working against us,” he said. “That’s what it is and I know that’s tough language but it’s one of those issues.”

Fellow judiciary committee co-chair Rep. Steve Strafstrom (D-Bridgeport) said he was proud of the bill that passed.

“I’m proud to have stood on behalf of this comprehensive package that will bring much-needed, common sense transparency and accountability into Connecticut’s Police Departments,” Strafstrom said in a statement. “As I said two weeks ago I believe this package to be a robust and fair one. I’m hopeful the Senate will feel the same way in sending it to the Governor’s desk.”

Governmental immunity a complex subject

The concepts of governmental and qualified immunity date back centuries to England and are widely used around the world to this day, said William Dunlap, professor at law at Quinnipiac University. Qualified immunity is a federal concept, while Connecticut calls it governmental immunity.

"They both stem from a centuries-old concept that governments cannot be sued without the government’s permission,” Dunlap told Patch.

There is already a portion of Connecticut law that mandates all governmental employees to be reimbursed should they be personally sued while acting as an employee so long as their conduct doesn't become a malicious, wanton or willful act, he said.

"As to a police officer’s personal financial liability, abolishing governmental immunity should not affect the officer,” Dunlap said.

In practice, police officers are rarely held financially liable for their actions, Dunlap said.

Municipal advocates worry that the bill, if fully passed, would still cost towns additional funds at a time when tax dollars are constrained due to the pandemic. The Connecticut Council of Small Towns wrote a letter to legislators asking them to take the immunity portion of the bill out of the bill and study it more.

“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.”

Proponents of the qualified immunity section said it would give people who feel their rights were violated by police a fair method to bring their grievances to court and it would encourage towns not to employ officers who could open them up to legal liability.

Stamford police union President Sgt. Kris Engstrand said the vast majority of officers are in favor of increased accountability and transparency for police, but that the bill as written could have some unintended consequences and financial costs; it also comes at a time when some people want to decrease police department budgets. The bill, if fully passed, would be the biggest change for law enforcement in his 24-year career, Engstrand said.

“I don’t want to say I’m happy with it, but I’m glad to see the legislators saw some merit in taking the onus off the individual officer,” Engstrand said in an interview with Patch.

Engstrand also said he worried about the pace at which the bill came about, which didn’t allow a lot of time for input on a complex issue. Some issues like the confusion over qualified immunity likely could’ve been explained prior to the legislative debate, he said.

“I think everything came out fast I think it would’ve been better if we did it as a collaborative effort,” he said.

He said he was in favor of increased training hours mentioned in the bill and the mandate that all officers in the state would have to use body and dashboard cameras. The Stamford Police Department has mandated body cameras for a couple of years now.

However, increased training and body camera upkeep also comes with additional costs for cities and towns, he said. Stamford police pay around $500,000 a year to maintain their body camera program due to the costs of maintenance and archival of video footage, he said.

The bill also addresses the following changes:

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 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.