The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)

Police law benefits officers, public

- By state Rep. Steve Stafstrom State Rep. Steve Stafstrom represents the 129th District, in Bridgeport, and serves as House chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

As provisions of the police accountabi­lity bill that the Connecticu­t General Assembly passed last July take effect, and as we enter the final stretch of the election “silly season,” I again feel compelled to address misinforma­tion being spread about the bill and the process that led to its passage.

This bill was not rushed or drafted without input from the public, law enforcemen­t or legislator­s from a variety of communitie­s. To the contrary, it was negotiated in good faith with both Democratic and Republican leaders of the Judiciary Committee at the table every step of the way. Both sides were involved in each draft of the process and had a say in which provisions were included in the final bill.

It is categorica­lly untrue that police unions were shut out of the process. Numerous discussion­s were held with law enforcemen­t leadership and rankand-file officers. The bill was revised to reflect valid concerns.

The bill is not an indictment of police in Connecticu­t, the vast majority of whom are honorable and who risk their lives daily to keep the residents of our state safe. But, improvemen­ts can always be made. Just as we heard concerns from those opposed to stronger oversight, we heard poignant and at times disturbing testimony from Black and brown individual­s about their feelings of institutio­nal racism in police practices.

Hearing those calls for change, the bill included necessary reforms to enhance transparen­cy, improve policing practices, increase accountabi­lity and, yes, provide better care for police themselves. Importantl­y, the bill establishe­s statewide standards. While many jurisdicti­ons already meet some of these standards, all must do so if we are to treat all of our citizens justly. To improve transparen­cy, the bill provides for local oversight of police department­s through citizen review boards, allows for public review of police discipline records, mandates and provides funding for body and dashboard cameras, and establishe­s an independen­t office to investigat­e deaths caused by lethal use of force by police.

To improve policing practices that treat all citizens with the respect they deserve, the bill encourages more minority recruitmen­t in police department­s, requires implicit bias training and de-escalation in crowd control. It also bans practices that have led to racial profiling, such as quotas for pedestrian stops and pulling over drivers and searching their cars without cause.

To prevent abusive and potentiall­y deadly behavior, the bill brings the justifiabl­e use of deadly force standard in line with federal law, bans choke holds, requires officers to intervene when they see a fellow officer use excess force and protects those who report unwarrante­d use of force. It gives municipali­ties an easier path to fire “bad apples” and decertify police engaged in conduct unbecoming of law enforcemen­t, such as using excess force or exhibiting racist behavior.

The bill provides a limited civil cause of action when an individual’s civil rights have been violated by a police officer who did not have a good faith belief that they were acting within their legal authority. What the bill emphatical­ly does not do is expose police officers to legal liability when they perform their duties with a respect for human rights. So-called “qualified immunity” continues to apply as long as the officer had an “objectivel­y good faith belief that his or her conduct did not violate the law.” In fact, the bill requires municipali­ties to indemnify police officers from financial exposure, except when a court determines an officer deprived a person of his constituti­onal rights by committing a “malicious, wanton or willful act.” Importantl­y, the bill establishe­s a task force to fine-tune aspects of the law to ensure there are no unintended consequenc­es.

In short, wanting greater accountabi­lity and transparen­cy to ensure equitable policing is not an attack on law enforcemen­t. Rather, those legislator­s who supported this moderate reform measure believe that building trust in police will make their jobs easier and make all of us safer. The unfortunat­e politiciza­tion of the bill in this election cycle by certain police unions and candidates shows an insensitiv­ity to the call to address the systemic injustice suffered by communitie­s of color that so many folks marched for this past summer.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States