The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
A divided Senate OKs police reforms
Controversial bill passes 21-15, awaits Lamont’s signature
HARTFORD — The law enforcement reform bill passed the state Senate in a predawn vote Wednesday after a long night in which Republicans attacked the plan while acknowledging that whites in suburbs have vastly different experiences with police than Black and Hispanic people in the cities.
Along the way, a Bridgeport Democratic lawmaker wrapped himself in the American flag; a rural Democrat railed against the way the bill was crafted, only to vote for it; Republicans charged that the legislation was not properly vetted and would lead to bad outcomes.
And the lone Black GOP lawmaker delivered an extended speech over what he believes will be millions of dollars in additional insurance costs for towns to pay for the actions of rogue officers.
But the 21-15 vote, with only conservative Sen. Joan Hartley from Waterbury lining up against the bill among Democrats, will put
Connecticut police on the path to more transparency and accountability, supporters said.
When Gov. Ned Lamont signs it — which he will as soon as this week — the new law will bring an state inspector general to investigate police-involved shootings, mandatory body and dashboard cameras, and the ability of the public to review disciplinary records.
The legislation will end the practice of police officers who are fired in one town getting jobs in other Connecticut communities.
The vote, shortly before 4 a.m., culminated a sometimes emotional ten-and-ahalf hour debate, during which lawmakers said the issue has tested friendships and political alliances.
Sen. Dennis Bradley, D-Bridgeport, wore the American flag like a shawl in his remarks late Tuesday, to illustrate how much he appreciates the country and accepts the legislation.
“I love this flag and I would never, ever pass a piece of legislation that goes to punish police officers with indifference, to punish Black people with indifference, to punish anybody with indifference,” he said. “I vote for this knowing that it is not perfect, knowing that none of us is perfect.”
Sen. Carlo Leone, DStamford, said the overall issue was very complicated, but the May 25 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police set off a national discussion about race and police violence that had been simmering for years, if not decades.
“So now we are at a crossroads where we want to make change,” Leone said. “Hopefully change for the better. Change that we know must come. But as I’m hearing the debate and as I’m hearing the different points of view, it’s clear that we’re still not in full agreement as to what that change needs to be or how that change needs to happen. Are there abuses? Yes. Are those abuses caught? Yes, maybe not always. Maybe not in the way that people would like. That’s what the courts are for. But then the question becomes is that fair for all parties?”
‘Friendships shattered’
It was a major victory for Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, who remained in the nearly empty Senate chamber throughout the debate with only a few other top Senate leaders, as rank-and-file lawmakers came in, one or two at a time to speak, then left as custodial crews, using coronavirus protocols, quickly sanitized microphones, desks and even nameplates.
The 36-member Senate chamber, known informally as “the circle,” was limited to eight members at a time but rarely had even that many on the floor as the debate unfolded.
Winfield went back-andforth with questioning lawmakers, sometimes offering short, curt answers, sometimes with no replies to tough questions, such as several asked by Sen. Cathy Osten, DSprague.
Osten explained her unprecedented experience in rural eastern Connecticut after the Floyd killing.
“We started having protests or rallies, people talking about what they were seeing going on, and these protests or rallies were happening in a district that
I represent that had never before seen anything like this at all, ever,” Osten said.
She said the bill was poorly crafted and should have gone through other committees, not just the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. She charged that the way it was drafted was inadequate and the debate framed as if those who lined up against the reforms were racist.
“We allowed ourselves to be addressed that way,” Osten said during an hourlong appearance on the Senate floor early Wednesday morning. “And we have actually treated our colleagues that way. In both the House and the Senate, the rhetoric that has happened around this bill has not been good. It has not done the right thing for our respective communities or each other.”
She added, “There have been friendships that have been shattered by the way we handled this bill and that has not been good.”
In the end, Osten voted for the measure.
Immunity at heart of debate
Republicans warned of unintended consequences.
“Good cops are going to be sued, no doubt about it,” said Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven. “The strength of our cities depends on the way we treat the people in our cities. We have to get real on it. We’ve got to have deep conversations, and we’ve got to be honest with each other and straight forward, and not let the noise of cowards on Facebook
dictate how we feel and the way we act. But supporting it would send the wrong message.”
Possibly the most vehement attack on the legislation came from Sen. George Logan, R-Ansonia, the only Black GOP member of either chamber, who quoted police sources in his hometown claiming that the end of so-called qualified immunity, the mostcontroversial piece of the bill, would lead to “frivolous” lawsuits.
“Overall, this bill would be a blow to public safety,” Logan said as Winfield showed no emotion on the other side of the circle of mostly empty Senate desks. “It will drastically affect their ability to do their jobs effectively. Removing qualified immunity as it stands now for all police officers, which this bill does, will devastate police officers’ ability to protect people in Connecticut.”
That section of the bill, similar to existing federal law, means that police convicted of malicious brutality could also become personally liable for civil suits in state Superior Court. Police unions have claimed that if the bill becomes law, many law enforcement officials will retire or resign in protest and recruitment will be much harder.
Only the most-violent, out-of-control cops should be worried, Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said in the final speech of the night.
“I don’t think we’re going to see a rash of judgments because the conduct really has to be egregious by the officer to meet that standard of conduct that is malicious, wanton or willful,” Looney said. “Obviously conduct to which the officer can demonstrate good faith, there will be no breaching of qualified immunity.”
The bill, which passed the House 86-58 last week, was not the target of a GOP amendment that could have stripped out the controversial immunity section, which House Republicans narrowly failed to delete last week.
Trust in the police
Other lawmakers found other problematic sections beyond the issue of immunity, including limiting so-called consent searches, where police stop vehicles for minor reasons, with the goal of searching the vehicle for drugs or weapons.
“I am very concerned about what the language in this bill is going to do,” said Sen. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield, who believes that the new limits to searches and seizures could hinder police. “I think the folks in the state of Connecticut that make a livelihood out of illegal activity are going to see this as an opportunity. I think it’s going to increase the level of violence in communities. Not like mine. I think it’s going to increase the level of violence in larger communities,” Miner said.
“We don’t want to take anything away from the police,” said Sen. Marilyn Moore, D-Bridgeport. “We want good cops. We want justice. We want to be treated as equals.” She said she’s been the target of harassing emails. “When I received emails from people all over the state and not in my district, they were very cruel. Many were vulgar. A lot of it is the narrative that was created about the untruths of this bill.”
After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, agreed it’s a first step taken during a challenging time, when the coronavirus literally ended the regular legislative session two months early.
“By passing this bill, it shows that, as a legislature, we are committed to addressing the structural issues that exist and seek reform so that residents, particularly residents of color, regain trust and confidence in their police departments,” Duff said.
Stonington Police Chief J. Darren Stewart, president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, said he expects the group to review the legislation closely when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.
“There are concerns that parts of this bill may inhibit our ability to attract and retain quality police officers,” he said. “Also, there is significant case law that ensures constitutional policing — particularly as it relates to use of force, governmental immunity, and the ability of officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets.”
He stopped short of saying the law would be unconstitutional.
kdixon@ctpost.com Twitter: @KenDixonCT