Police asking for delay of deadly force rules until 2022
Law enforcement officials on Monday asked state legislators to delay new rules and clarify language on the use of deadly force until at least October 2022, in order to revamp training methods, especially tactics on de-escalating incidents before they become violent.
The request amounts to an 18-month pushback of parts of the controversial police reform and transparency bill adopted last summer by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. Ned Lamont. It also could give police more leeway in using deadly force, a crucial point of contention in the debate, which led to widespread protests by police and their suppoters.
Police chiefs and unionized police officers agreed on proposed legislation that would postpone sections that were scheduled to take effect April 1 of this year. They asked for the legislation to be fast-tracked in the next few weeks to have the bill on Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk before the end of March.
At a public hearing Monday, lawmakers led by state Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, stressed the need to retain tighter standards in police deadly force at a time of fear in Black communities throughout the state and nation. A leading police chief said that Connecticut would still have the “most-restrictive” standards in the country under the proposal.
In addition to delaying the implementation of the deadly force guidelines, the bill would clarify a legal standard requiring the use of “reasonable alternatives” to deadly force. Under the current law, police would have to “exhaust” alternatives to deadly force when confronted by suspects who threaten them.
The language is subject to further negotiations, however, including closed door caucuses of committee members starting Tuesday .
“Officers will need extensive training in the new techniques so that they do not run afoul of the new law,” said Florencio Cotto, a New Haven police officer who is president of the Police Officers Association of Connecticut, representing 4,000 officers in departments including Cheshire, Danbury, Greenwich, Hartford, Milford, New Haven, Newtown, Naugatuck, Prospect, Stamford, Waterbury, and West Hartford.
“The effective date should be extended out far enough to ensure that every officer is trained before they are held to the new standard,” Cotto said.
“This is a significant, significant change,” said Milford Police Chief Keith Mello, past president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and head of the Police Officer Standards and Training Council, which oversees the statewide police certification process and was a leading proponent in requesting the delay.
“We’re not ready. It’s a heavy lift,” Mello said.
The fear by proponents of the delay and new definition is that under the new rules some police might find themselves hesitating during confrontations — putting them in danger.
In response, Porter said, “I can tell you that that same fear, with a lot more frequency, occurs throughout the Black community every day...This bill was brought forward to bring protection to people in their community.”
During last June’s special session, the State Capitol was the gathering point for hundreds of law enforcement members from throughout the state opposed to the measures, which grew out of the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests following the May death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minnesota.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, DBridgeport, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the Police Officer Standards and Training Council reported last fall that even before the new accountability rules were approved, Connecticut rules on the use of deadly force were lagging behind the nation.
“This legislature has certainly shown a willingness and desire to strengthen the legal framework that governs police use of force in Connecticut,” Stafstrom said during the online public hearing.
He said “reasonable tweaks” to the bill have been encouraged, particularly on the amount of time needed to develop new statewide training protocols.
“I would be comfortable saying it is the most-restrictive use-of-force policy in the country and I think our policy does reflect those changes,” Mello said. “I think that the fact that we are here today, maintaining the orginal intent but asking for clarity, I think, also shows that we respect those changes. We can do it. We will do it. At the end of the day, it’s the outcomes.”
“It’s my belief we should give additional time for police departments throughout the state to retrain officers to the new restrictive use-of-force policy,” Stafstrom said. “I want to see officers have enough time needed to allow for additional training, reducing the chances for deadly encounters.”