The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Police reform bill passes House
Lawmakers approve measure that would expose cops to lawsuits
HARTFORD — Rogue law enforcement officers could become more exposed to lawsuits under a sweeping police accountability bill that passed the House during the morning rush hour Friday after a seven-and-a-half-hour debate, and now heads to the Senate for action next week.
The final 86-58 vote, coming after 9 a.m. after an all-night session, belied a fracture in the majority
Democratic caucus that was almost exploited by Republicans, who came within one vote of eliminating the most controversial part of the bill.
Republicans tried to strip away the immunity provision, which could increase personal lawsuits against police officers who violate allowable practices. Because of coronavirus protections, most lawmakers remained in their private offices in the state Capitol and nearby
Legislative Office Building throughout the debate.
A 72-72 deadlock on the Republican amendment was declared by Speaker of the House Joe Aresimowicz after the House tally machine was kept open for 45 minutes, as both sides scrambled for support from lawmakers.
Seventeen Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the deletion of the so-called qualified immunity section, which police, Republicans and municipal officials claimed would discourage cops and cost cities and towns even more in annual insurance payments.
Even Gov. Ned Lamont had said the section would be better off removed and discussed either later this year or during the next General Assembly session — if the dispute over immunity would derail the whole reform. On Friday morning he expressed support for the final bill.
“It’s, I think, a very thoughtful, important piece of legislation that seizes the moment following George Floyd in particular, what it says about transparency, what it says about accountability,” Lamont said. “I didn’t want to have one item necessarily derail that bill and I think the legislature came to a good decision.”
The package will likely have an equally tough time in the state Senate, where Democrats have a 22-14 majority, but where a tie can be broken by Democratic Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz.
In the House, Republican, Rep. Jesse MacLachlan of Westbrook voted with Democrats to keep the section, which was approved at about 7 a.m.
Heading into the vote on the amendment, an emotional House Majority Leader Matt Ritter said that although his job is to count heads, he didn’t know how much support there was to retain the immunity provision. “I failed in my job today,” he said. “There is no predetermined outcome here. Sometimes democracy can be a little uncomfortable. It can be a little messy. In this country it certainly has not been a perfect process.”
Ritter said significant change in the country has come after major expressions of public sentiment, such as the millions of people who have marched nationwide in the two months following the choking death of Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25. He said the immunity section mirrors a federal law that allows plaintiffs to seek damages from police who have engaged in wanton conduct.
“There’s no new liability standard for an individual officer at all,” Ritter said. “It was the towns that got worried. Folks, towns indemnify everybody now, not just police officers. They indemnify the animal control officers, they indemnify the board of education. That is all already done. That’s why there are huge insurance policies for towns.”
Democrats who voted against the provision included Rep. Jonathan Steinberg of Westport, Rep. Stephen Meskers of Greenwich, Rep. Kara Rochelle of Ansonia and Rep. Michelle Cook of Torrington. Two liberal lawmakers who voted on other bills Thursday, Rep. Josh Elliot of Hamden and Rep. Chris Perone of Norwalk, missed the 7 a.m. vote.
All day Thursday, legislative leaders attempted to salvage the bill in closed-door negotiations during a historic return to a near-empty state Capitol, from which the public was prohibited entry and lawmakers were encouraged to vote from their offices. Then, at 1:20 a.m., Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, finally introduced the bill — 15 hours after hundreds of off-duty unionized police officers demonstrated against it.
“We understood and heard concerns and have tried to strike the right balance on that issue in the current plan before us,” said Stafstrom, stressing a variety of reforms in the proposal, including a new inspector general in charge of investigating and prosecuting the excess use of force.
The bill has a new procedure in which officers may lose their certification, ending the tactic of being fired from one department, then finding a police job elsewhere in a statewide revolving door. The bill also would mandate mental health and substanceabuse screening.
“We’ve made sure that officers who need behavioral health treatment can get it,” Stafstrom said. “I understand the gravity of this moment we’re in and the debate that’s likely to ensue on this very important issue.”
Stafstrom and Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, then went back and forth in an hourslong question-andanswer exchange over details of the bill. After 3:30 a.m., Rebimbas raised her voice over the cost of the bill to towns facing the new state mandates.
Under questioning by Rebimbas about police searches, Stafstrom defended the bill as “going right to the heart of racial justice.”
Rebimbas reviewed the entire bill with Stafstrom. “I stand here with many others acknowledging and knowing that some of these most horrific events have taken place,” she said, conceding instances of police brutality throughout the nation and within Connecticut. She said after the recent virtual public hearing on the bill, GOP lawmakers decided they would oppose the bill.
“We met, we discussed and unfortunately there was a time where we had to part ways and we were unable to reach agreement even though we made all attempts to do so,” Rebimbas said, thanking Lamont’s office for participating in negotiations. “Despite all good efforts we have not reached a bipartisan proposal. Maybe it went too far and quite frankly there are still a lot of questions.”
After 4 a.m., the 61person Republican minority, which was down by five members who were not in attendance, submitted the amendment to remove the most provocative section of the bill, which would allow police officers to be personally liable in civil suits by people injured in “malicious, wanton, willful” acts of police brutality, similar to existing federal law.
House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, predicted that it would result in higher costs for towns and the need for personal liability insurance for law enforcement officers. “Unfortunately, this became an issue of taking sides. The problem is clear,” Klarides said of the reforms that brought out a sharp divided between Democrats and Republicans. “The solution is unclear.”
Ritter disagreed. “No one needs insurance policies, because it’s the same legal standard” as the federal rules, he said during the majority leader’s traditional summation. “You know it has good stuff in it,” he said asking for bipartisan support after the immunity clause was aired and the attempt to overturn the section was defeated by the slimmest of margins.
Early in the debate, when Democratic leaders were unsure whether the bill would pass, GOP leaders said they did not plan to draft such an amendment and lawmakers on both sides wondered whether Democrats opposed to the section would offer their own attempt to remove the immunity piece.
Police and other governmental officials are indemnified from civil lawsuits. So in practical terms, opponents led by Rebimbas pointed out, the bill would result in higher insurance costs for towns and cities
Black and Latino members of the House rose up with emotion, memories and first-hand experience against the effort to delete the section. “This is about listening to your colleagues,” said Rep. Quentin Phipps, D-Middletown, shortly after 6:20 a.m., citing the 40 or so people killed by police in Connecticut over the last five years. “This is about starting to hold folks accountable,” said the Black lawmaker. “We have normalized our trauma.”
Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, who is white, agreed that after centuries of history “400 years of excuses and some 60 years of qualified immunity,” it is “a ridiculous standard” that has been used by police who have killed young teens, arrested people outside their homes and who regularly profile people of color. “It is a ridiculous standard that I would doubt anyone would vote for,” Lemar said. “Can we protect our citizens just a little bit more than the federal government? This is an egregious legal standard that needs to be removed. Deny this amendment.”
“We can easily call this the ostrich amendment, where we just stick our heads in the sand,” said Rep. Edwin Vargas, a retired school teacher from Hartford. “This could be like a breath of fresh air.”
The bill came under fire on Thursday morning as about 300 off-duty police officers and supporters — many without face masks to fight COVID-19 — led by Andrew Matthews, executive director of the Connecticut State Police Union, chanted “Vote Them Out” near an entrance to the Capitol, which has been closed to the public since March 12 in the coronavirus pandemic.
Matthews, who then charged that only “brain dead” lawmakers or “cop haters” would vote for the bill, predicted that if the immunity portion of the bill were to pass, mass resignations and retirements would result statewide across all law enforcement agencies.
This show of muscle may have cast further doubt in lawmakers facing reelection this year. The immunity section was also opposed by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Council of Small Towns.
Other protesters under the Black Lives Matter banner, outnumbered by police, rallied in favor of the accountability measures at the Capitol Thursday.