Police accountability bill
Despite pressure from police chiefs to make changes to the accountability bill, legislative leaders said it is not likely to happen in an upcoming special session.
HARTFORD— Despite continuing pressure from police chiefs and rank-and-file officers to make major changes to a recently passed police accountability bill, the legislature’s two highest-ranking leaders said Wednesday that is not likely to happen in an upcoming special session.
Sen. Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, said he is not ruling out minor changes, such as pushing back the effective dates of various provisions in the 71-page bill. But he said a full debate is “remote at this point” after Republicans called for reviewing many issues that were approved by Democrats in both chambers
from Page 1 and signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont.
Adebate will not be held “unless there is an agreement to make a few, consensus, technical changes” in the bill, Looney said Wednesday. “It looks like the Republicans have decided to completely politicize this issue. They want to be able to re-debate the entire bill and offer amendments on every possible section. It seems their intent is just to try to create this into a single issue that they may have to raise in the campaign.”
In a strongly worded letter, Senate Republican leader Len Fasano of North Haven cited 14 topics, including the key provisions of the bill, that needed to be changed.
“It’s clear that the damage caused by this bill is already being felt in our communities,” Fasano wrote. “Police officers do not have confidence in the administration. Recruitment is a major issue. Many experienced officers are planning to retire. All at the same time Connecticut is seeing an uptick in crime especially in our urban communities. If you promised to correct these issues, now is the time to act before the situation worsens. Delaying action on all problematic pieces of the new law will only create more public safety issues.”
He said that minor tinkering would not be enough.
“This cannot be done in a piecemeal fashion where one element is changed, but other equally as damaging provisions are allowed to stand,” Fasano said.
The issues that need to be changed, Fasano said, include restoring the previous language on the legal concept of qualified immunity to prevent officers from suffering personal financial damages in civil lawsuits, allowing “consent searches” when cars are pulled over for motor vehicle violations and maintaining the current standards for the use of deadly force by police.
The changes on deadly force will not begin until April 1, 2021, but police have asked for that date to be pushed back in order to provide for more training. The legislature could change the date, but Looney noted that Lamont also has the authority to change dates through an executive order under his sweeping powers related to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Rep. Whit Betts, a Bristol Republican who voted against the police bill, said the issues should not have been decided in the summer and instead should have been studied in more detail before being brought up in the next legislative session in January.
“Why in God’s name are we passing this in special session without public hearings?” Betts asked Wednesday. “What was the urgency in Connecticut? All I read about now is how bad the police are. Really? I know our community police are deeply offended and very angry” about the new law.
Democratic House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz of Berlin agreed with Looney, saying that a full debate on the already passed law will not happen because Republicans wrote substantial portions of the bill before voting against it. Saying that Fasano’s letter had changed the tone of the conversation this week, Aresimowicz said that he wants to avoid “a political stunt.”
Lawmakers are still deciding which issues — from an original list of about 18 items — will be debated in a special session that is expected to be held next week in the state Senate and the following week in the state House of Representatives.
Aresimowicz said lawmakers are looking to approve a bill seeking to curb sexual assaults on college campuses that was originally proposed during the regular session that was short-circuited in March by the coronavirus pandemic. Lawmakers want to ensure that victims of sexual assault will not be afraid to report any incidents on campus, he said. The problem, he said, is that students can be thrown out of school if they attend an illegal party due to coronavirus restrictions.
“It really is the fear of many of us that because the activities are banned and could result in you being asked to leave the school — that the affected party would not report it,” Aresimowicz said. “If the sexual assault happened at a party, how likely is that individual going to report the crime where the first thing they have to say is, ‘Yes, I was at an illegal party?’
He added, “The bill would not allow them to take other steps against the student for reporting the incident.”
The special session will also include consumer protections for energy customers, including rebates for spoiled food and medicines, along with adding condominiums for protection under the state’s crumbling foundations law.
“It was always the intention, but based upon the reading of some of the language, it was unclear,” Aresimowicz said of condominiums. “We intended all along to have them included, so this will clarify it.”
While legislators debated through the night in July in both the House and the Senate, Looney said “the hope” this month is for a one-day session in each chamber.