Consequences of the state’s police bill
On Sept. 1, the Connecticut State Police Union took a historic vote of no confidence in the governor and two state police leaders. This action came after executive orders and enactment of a sweeping police accountability bill that was fast-tracked through the legislature and signed by the governor in the middle of the summer.
This no confidence vote in Gov. Ned Lamont, commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection James Rovella and Commanding Officer Lt. Col. John Eckersley is a giant red flag. The union said that of its 850 members, 716 cast ballots, and of the 707 valid votes that were cast, 97 percent expressed no confidence in all three leaders.
This same union took umbrage with Lamont for his reactive executive order in early July banning chokeholds by the state police. Considering state police had prohibited chokeholds for more than 30 years, they accused the governor of political posturing.
We should all take notice of these state troopers expressing this much frustration. Nearly half of them will be eligible for retirement in 2023. Concerned about the shortage of state police, in February 2019, state Sen. Cathy Osten said, “We are close to almost a crisis level.” Alarmingly, one year after acknowledging a near “crisis level” shortage of troopers, she and fellow Democrats voted for the counter-productive, rushed-through police bill.
The police accountability bill included 46 sections of new laws that haphazardly micromanage the work of the police. This bill did not receive proper public debate, nor time for more considered deliberation. Much of the bill is still not fully fleshed out, nor did those who voted for the bill its real budgetary and public safety impact on police departments, municipalities or the state.
One of the most ill-thought-out consequences of this bill is that it prohibits consent searches of individuals and limits searches of motor vehicles stopped solely for motor vehicle violations. See Section 21 of the bill.
What do our police officers find when they exercise these searches of motor vehicles? Here are just three examples, among many.
1 In 2016, in Derby, 55 pounds of the opioid Fentanyl, equaling about 15 million lethal doses, were seized in motor vehicle stop of a tractor trailer. This was one of the five largest Fentanyl busts in U.S. history. We cannot take lightly that the Drug Enforcement Administration says Connecticut is the gateway to New England for illegal drugs.
1 In 2019, in Old Saybrook, illegal assault rifles and high-capacity magazines were taken off our streets, during a routine Driver Safety Checkpoint.
1 And in May 2020, in Marlborough, illegal guns and drugs were found during a motor vehicle stop, along with the driver’s 5-year-old child sleeping in the back seat. The child was safely returned to a relative, in addition to having Connecticut’s child welfare agency notified of the parent’s arrest with a litany of charges.
Consent searches are constitutional and have been determined to be lawful by thousands of Appellate and trial level courts for decades, says Elliot Spector, attorney and president of the Spector Criminal Justice Training Network. Spector is calling for this section of the bill to be repealed.
In regards to mandating body cameras, Section 19 of the bill, state troopers already have them. In Greenwich, the police department has been asking for them. Our police have never needed the state to mandate these; what they need is funding to acquire them. In Stamford, officers on patrol use body cameras, but now officers who interact with the public even from behind a desk will need to wear body cameras.
While body cameras cost about $1,000 each, the data storage per officer is about $1,300 per year. For a police department of about 150 officers like Greenwich or 270 officers like Stamford, the cost of data storage could be as high as $195,000 and $351,000 per year, respectively.
The new law requires not only body cameras, but dashboard cameras and data storage as well, without identifying where the funding to acquire those items will come from. This is just one section among many of the unfunded mandates in this bill that would impact tax levies for all municipalities, many of which are already struggling economically.
Perhaps the greatest rub of the bill is that it completely ignores that we in Connecticut have a state police force that leads the country in pursuing best practices, as evidenced by the Connecticut State Police being the third in the nation to receive International Law Enforcement Accreditation.
It is imperative that legislation is crafted through a process of checks and balances, and with what politicians might feel is excruciating slowness, but for the people, would be the chance for wisdom and honest caring to prevail.
This November, we Nutmeggers must hold accountable those politicians who voted “yes” and did not properly vet all the components of this bill that will compromise public safety. You can see how your legislator voted on this bill by clicking here: state House and state Senate .