The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Advocates for police reform say ‘immunity’ change is small
Advocates for the a controversial police accountability bill heading for the state Senate on Tuesday held their positions, insisting police union claims that they could lose their houses in future lawsuits, as well as towns’ concerns that they could end up paying a lot more for the damages of rogue officers, are unfounded.
At issue, as it was last week, is a section that tightens the rules on so-called qualified immunity that protects law enforcement officers from lawsuits by people claiming their rights were violated. Police unions and others in law enforcemen say the provision goes too far.
In fact, the lives of average law enforcement officials will not change if the bill, mimicking existing federal law, passes the state Senate, advoates said. Gov. Ned Lamont last week indicated that he would sign it.
“A cop would only face a suit where he has violated the constitutional rights of someone, and did not have a good-faith belief he was following the law when he did so,” said state Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, who introduced, then defended the wide-ranging police accountability bill during a seven-and-a-halfhour-long House debate that ended at 9 a.m. on Friday.
“And even then, the municipality has to indemnify against damages,
unless a jury finds the officer’s act willful and malicious,” Stafstrom, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Monday.
Republicans say the bill may have unintended consequences and should not have been rushed through in a special session as one of four bills with one day of debate for each General assembly chamber.
“The short two-day notice we received for the virtual ‘public hearing’ has me concerned that the Connecticut’s legislative body is taking a rushed approach to handling a very important and emotionally charged issue affecting many people in and out of law enforcement,” said Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, who noted the potential for unintended consequences.
By the time the bill reached the House floor early Friday, the immunity section had become the product of a compromise that, according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, made it “more workable and less onerous.”
The bill’s changes included removing language that would have allowed a direct action against a municipality. The final legislation also deleted a section on punitive awards for intentional acts.
The reason for the section, said Stafstrom who co-authored the bill with committee co-chairman Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, was the desire on the part of Democrats to respond to what is seen as the hard-to-use federal qualified immunity, in which lawsuits against particular rogue cops can only go forward for cases that are exactly similar to cases that had been decided in the past.
Emphasizing the dangers of moving too quickly, Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, asked Attorney General William Tong over the weekend for an opinion on whether a certain section of the bill related to investigations of allegations against police was unconstitutional. Fasano said he supported
“It’s greatly improved. Nobody is having their immunity stripped away. The qualified immunity here in Connecticut now matches the federal government.”
Gov. Ned Lamont
the measure but didn’t believe it passed legal muster.
Tong on Monday responded with a lengthy letter that said, in part, there’s no time for such an opinion before the Senate acts, and it would be inappropriate considering the House already adopted the measure. Fasano immediately sought a delay in the vote from the Senate Democtatic leaders.
Advocates for rights of Black and Hispanic people charge that federal laws are essentially useless in gaining awards for constitutional violations that could amount to racist attacks.
The issue of qualified immunity has created a firestorm over the last week, with 300 police gathered at the Capitol warning of mass retirements and resignations on Thursday before the House debate. Advocates led by Black government and religious leaders say it’s a crucial part of the accountability legislation, particularly in the national Black Lives Matter demonstrations that brought millions of people of all colors into the streets in protest over decades of racism that crystalized after the choking death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25.
On Monday, religious leaders joined state Treasurer Shawn Wooden in a news conference outside the State Office Building near the State Capitol, to call for support of the legislation in the Senate.
“I am also the subject/object of the intimidation that some police officers bring upon any simple stop,” said the Rev. Anthony Bennett, pastor of Mt. Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport.
“It is my hope and prayer that the senators will deliberate. We are done dying without accountability, and we believe this police accountability bill will take a step forward in making police officers who misconduct, to allow them to have accountability.”
Asked Monday whether he would try to lobby senators to act in favor of the legislation, Lamont said he believes there is enough support in the Senate, which has a 22-14 Democratic majority, plus Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz, in case of a tie vote.
“I would approve it,” Lamont reiterated during his Monday news briefing. “I think it’s a good bill. It takes into account transparency and accountability, builds more trust between the police and the local community. I think it’s important. I think the House made it a better bill and I hope the senate passes it.”
Asked if he would help lobby the bill, Lamont said he would assess the bill’s support.
“My understanding is it’s moving along pretty well,” Lamont said. “It’s greatly improved. Nobody is having their immunity stripped away. The qualified immunity here in Connecticut now matches the federal government. Qualified immunity is in place for the vast majority of anything a cop could be doing. There’s just in case of wanton, reckless, willful wrongs, in that case your immunity would no longer cover.”
Stafstrom said that since 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court has held a requirement that a plaintiff must show a defendant law enforcement official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” and the plaintiff is required to cite another case with very similar circumstances.
In one case, the high court said in 2019 that police officers should have recognized they were wrong when they stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, but they “did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.”