Chokeholds remain last resort, local forces say

Lamont has prohibited use by state police

When Bridgeport’s City Council last month debated completely eliminating the use of chokeholds by its police officers, one member cited Gov. Ned Lamont’s recent restriction on Connecticut’s troopers.

“If we can ban it for state police, then there’s no reason we can’t ban chokeholds in Bridgeport,” Councilwoman Maria Pereira argued at the time.

Lamont spokesman Max Reiss this week told Hearst Connecticut Media the governor’s June 15 executive order was to “act as an example” for cities, towns and the legislature when considering public safety reforms following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis in May.

A police officer in that Midwestern city who pressed his knee to Floyd’s neck for nearly 8 minutes has been charged with second-degree murder.

“The governor has signaled ... what he views as the future for chokeholds,” Reiss said.

But it may not be that simple. Based on information gathered by Hearst, Lamont went farther than some Connecticut

law enforcement professionals and elected leaders may ultimately deem practical, and also faces stiff opposition from the troopers’ union.

New Haven, Milford, Bridgeport, Norwalk, Stamford and the governor’s hometown of Greenwich all allow chokeholds as a form of “deadly” or “lethal” force reserved for life-or-death scenarios. So does the organization those departments rely on for guidance: the Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST).

“You can’t use (a chokehold) unless somebody’s trying to kill you, and then only if you have no other alternative,” emphasized Milford Police Chief Keith Mello, who is also POST’s chairman.

Lamont’s executive order applying only to state troopers intentionally lacked that “unless” qualifier.

“I don’t see any wiggle room on it,” Reiss confirmed.

The state police department’s union in a June 30 letter to Lamont expressed members’ “disappointment and confusion” with his decision and accused the governor of “trying to politicize the issue.”

Andrew Matthews, the union’s executive director, on Friday told Hearst, “Although it has not been taught or in our policy for over 30 years, (a chokehold) could have been used in a life-or-death situation to defend the life of a trooper or member of the public.”

“The governor’s executive order now prohibits the chokehold even when a trooper would be justified to use deadly force,” Matthews said, adding: “We’ve always had a good relationship with the governor and legislature and we’re hopeful they seek our input in the future as they try to do reforms.”

Reiss said Lamont made up his mind following “close consultation” with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety.

“And the governor in those discussions, after hearing how (a chokehold) gets used, why it gets used, the circumstances, concluded that as the person in charge of state police, this is not something that is a required tool,” Reiss said.

Meanwhile in Bridgeport, several leaders of the police force and municipal lawyers last month mounted a vigorous defense of the chokehold as a last resort, either to prevent an officer from drawing and firing their gun, or if they have been disarmed.

For example, Lt. Manuel Cotto, an aide to Bridgeport Chief Armando Perez, told the City Council: “I might have to resort to choking somebody because I can’t get my hand on my gun.”

In response to post-Minneapolis calls to abolish chokeholds locally, many police professionals and municipal leaders have also, in describing their use as extremely rare and strictly enforced, seemingly implied cities and towns have bans as strict as Lamont’s when they do not.

“If you ask law enforcement and me, ‘Do we have a prohibition on chokeholds?’ Absolutely. It’s always been that way and should remain that way,” said Mello, POST’s chairman.

“I have never used a chokehold on anybody and I’ve never seen anyone in the Bridgeport police department use a chokehold on anyone. We don’t adhere to that policy,” Bridgeport Police Chief Armando Perez told council members.

In June Greenwich’s police force issued a document — “How We Police And Engage With Our Community” — which stated “chokeholds, or neck restraints, are considered deadly force and are prohibited.”

But in an email for this story, Lt. Mark Zuccerella, a spokesman for Greenwich police, clarified: “Chokeholds or other neck restrains are prohibited unless deadly physical force is authorized.”

After Bridgeport’s Council proposed eliminating chokeholds, Sgt. Brad Seely, the new president of that department’s union, countered, “Our officers are not trained to do chokeholds.”

In June Stamford Mayor David Martin said his city would “ban chokeholds and all neck restraints.” But this week Martin’s staff clarified to Hearst that those maneuvers would still be allowed for an officer to save his or her life.

While all operating independently, these departments adhere to best practices put forth by POST. But that would not prevent them from following Lamont’s lead, Mello said: “The responsibility of POST is to provide a floor — a minimum standard . ... The governor did that (prohibition) for state police. Every chief can do that for his or her local department.”

Three days before the governor’s order, POST took its own actions in response to Floyd’s death. POST clarified in its “use of force” regulation that “the use of a chokehold or neck restrain may only be used when the use of deadly force is necessary.”

“Most police departments like my own already had that prohibition in there,” Mello said. “We added it to make sure every department was addressing this issue.”

Mello emphasized there is a clear distinction between the Floyd case — where a chokehold was used as a basic restraint — and how law enforcers in Connecticut are required to employ them under dire circumstances. Mello said that often when developing public safety guidelines professionals need to consider the what-ifs.

He said POST last year updated its conditions for police pursuits to prevent shooting at moving cars. But, he said, there was an exception: “If there’s a car coming at you and ramming and running people over (and) your only option is to shoot to save the lives of hundreds.”

J. Darren Stewart is the police chief in Stonington, a town near the Rhode Island border, and also head of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association. He said he expected Lamont’s chokehold order will spark “a discussion” over their overall future in the state.

Stewart confirmed that Stonington, too, allows the controversial maneuver: “If you had to ever, unfortunately, go down that road it would be treated as a deadly force issue and you’d have to justify your reasons around that, not ‘just because.’ ”

However, at least two local departments Hearst contacted — New Canaan and New Milford — claimed chokeholds are forbidden.

“Chokeholds are not part of our defensive tactics training/policy, so any techniques used — including chokeholds — which we do not teach/authorize are against our policy,” said New Canaan Police Chief Leon Krolikowski.

John DeCarlo, Branford’s former police chief who runs the master’s program in criminal justice at the University of New Haven, speculated, “I think that chokeholds will maybe remain as an element of lethal force.”

DeCarlo said what happened in Minneapolis was “a chokehold done as badly as you can do one” but they may ultimately prove necessary for officers who are “not negligently, recklessly or malevolently trying to hurt somebody and trying to defend themselves.”

“Really what it boils down to is (establishing) good, thoughtful policy based on evidence and research and training, training and more training to make sure that policy is carried out,” DeCarlo said.

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker told Hearst he is “open to the conversation” about an absolute ban on chokeholds. But, Elicker noted, “Currently we allow police officers to use guns. And we only allow police officers to use guns for deadly force. So it seems intellectually inconsistent to allow that but not to allow chokeholds to be used in an extreme case of deadly force.”

Elicker said one compromise might be further strengthening his city’s rules to be as specific as possible about when chokeholds cannot be employed.

“There’s a lot of focus on chokeholds because of what happened with George Floyd, and understandably so,” Elicker continued. “But in New Haven’s policy, under no circumstances would what happened to George Floyd be covered. There’s zero interpretation that might (have made the treatment of Floyd) appropriate under our policy.”