State House Passes Cop Accountability Bill

The recent Black Lives Matter protests bore their first legislative fruits Friday as the state House of Representatives, with New Haven lawmakers playing a leading role, passed a bill to make officers more accountable for harming civilians.

The bill, HB 6004 An Act Concerning Police Accountability (AACPA), passed at 9 a.m. after a seven-plus-hour overnight debate and a dramatic 72 – 72 tie vote on an attempt to water it down.

The final House bill, which passed by a 85 – 58 vote with seven abstentions, now goes before the State Senate, where New Haven State Sen. Gary Winfield has championed the measure.

New Haven State Rep. Robyn Porter, one of the prime supporters in the House, proclaimed victory after the vote in the quest to hold accountable ​“not good cops, but some bad cops, the ones that are out there maiming, killing, and just totally disregarding the oath that they swore to serve and protect and uphold the law.”

“We did something in this building that hasn’t been done in a long time,” Porter stated in one of several public Facebook Live videos she posted over the course of the marathon legislative debate at the state Capitol in Hartford.

If passed in the Senate and signed into law by the governor, HB 6004 (click here to read the full bill) would achieve several goals sought by many who protested recent killings of civilians by police officers nationwide, including:

• Altering ​“governmental immunity” for accused officers so that civilians now have more of an opportunity to sue them in state court for damages (although, in a compromise, the statute of limitations would run out in one year, not three). Lobbied by police union members who demonstrated earlier in the day, some lawmakers tried to strike this part from the bill; that amendment, introduced around 4 a.m., failed in a tied 72 – 72 tie vote.

If this bill passes the Senate next Tuesday and is signed by the governor, people who allege civil harm by an officer can bring a civil rights suit in state court, and a sued officer can only invoke governmental immunity as a defense when ​“the police officer had an objectively good faith belief that such officer’s conduct did not violate the law.” If the court finds an officer’s action was ​“malicious, wanton or willful,” then that officer must reimburse the municipality that employs them for any financial damages awarded to the plaintiff. Proponents of the bill said that it would also make it easier for people allegedly harmed by a police officer to file a civil suit in state court, rather than just in federal court.

The final bill passed by the House does not explicitly use the words ​“qualified immunity,” as the original bill did. It instead references ​“governmental immunity” and when officers can use that as a legal defense in civil suits. Click here for a previous story detailing the original bill’s qualified immunity issue, here for a summary and history of the common law judicial concepts of qualified and governmental immunity, and see below for the full text of the governmental immunity provision included in the bill that passed Friday.

• Banning the use of chokeholds and strangleholds unless it can be shown that such measures are necessary to save a life.

• Banning searches of vehicles, even with an operator’s consent, unless probable cause of a crime exists.

• Increased mental-health screenings for officers.

• Creation of an office of inspector general to handle and potentially prosecute deadly use of force cases.

• Opening state officers’ disciplinary records under the state Freedom of Information Act.

Republican lawmakers, and some Democrats, characterized the bill as anti-cop. Proponents called it a needed response to the demands for greater accountability for wayward officers.

“The Black Lives Matter movement has swept our state as it has the nation as a whole,” said Bridgeport Democrat State Rep. Steven Stafstrom (pictured), who is the House chair of the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee and spent hours on the floor Friday morning defending the bill.

“We are paying attention and we know that the public is demanding that we rethink how we do policing here in the State of Connecticut.”

“The bill before us is not anti-cop,” he continued. ​“We understand that change is hard. But oftentimes, change is also necessary.”

Showdown On Immunity

New Haven state legislators — on the floor and behind the scenes — played a key role in getting the bill passed.

Just after the House took up the bill for debate at 1:20 a.m., New Haven State Rep. Robyn Porter posted a live video to Facebook—one of several she would post over the course of the next eight hours — telling her constituents that the police accountability bill had made it to the floor. And that the version under debate included a section that prohibited police officers from using governmental immunity as a defense in certain state civil suits when accused of harming a civilian.

“If the immunity in this bill comes out,” she said. ​“The teeth comes out.”

She urged anyone watching who cared about the bill to reach out to her, to their own legislators, to anyone they could who might be able to help the bill clear the 76-vote hurdle necessary in order to pass on to the state Senate next week.

“There is no compromise when it comes to death,” she said. ​“You’re either dead or alive.”

“We are voting for life,” she continued. ​“We are voting for liberty and justice for all. In spirit and in truth. We need 76 votes. Stay tuned.”

After nearly four hours of line-by-line debate between Stafstrom and Naugatuck Republican State Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, the ranking Republican on the state Judiciary Committee, the state Republicans introduced an amendment that would strip Section 41 — the governmental immunity section — from the bill entirely. Rebimbas and her colleagues argued that repealing qualified immunity would present too much of a financial burden for municipalities that would be on the hook for financial damages resulting from successful civil suits against police officers.

In a tied 72 – 72 vote, the amendment failed, leaving the section in as introduced.

But before that amendment was voted on, a host of Black and brown state legislators testified in support of the bill overall and in support of Section 41 in particular.

“To rid our police departments of qualified immunity is to rid what are overpoliced streets of bad actors,” Hartford Democrat State Rep. Brandon McGee (pictured) said. He said getting rid of qualified immunity is one step towards ​“break[ing] down the blue wall of silence.”

Bridgeport Democrat State Rep. Charlie Stallworth agreed. ​“What we’re pleading for today is not just help for Black and brown communities. Because when it happens in one place, it will at some point happen in another place,” he said.

“The time is now because to wait is to do absolutely nothing. And we’re tired. We’re tired. We’re tired. We have to do something now.”

“A Ridiculous Standard”

One of the few white state legislators to speak up on the floor in support of the police accountability bill as a whole and in support of repealing qualified immunity was New Haven State Rep. Roland Lemar.

Lemar said that he personally has only had positive and affirming experiences with police officers, in Rhode Island where he grew up and in New Haven.

“Never once have I had an experience to make me question that a local police officer wouldn’t come to my rescue if necessary,” he said.

But, he said, listening to the experiences of his Black and brown colleagues and constituents, he knows that their first-hand experiences with the police have been quite different.

“How do I grapple with the experiences and stories of my friends and colleagues and people I represent, with the feelings I know in my heart and my experience? We look at the facts,” he said.

And in recent years, he said, those facts about policing have come through in part via citizen cellphone videos taken of police officers abusing the rights of — and sometimes killing — Black and brown people.

“It’s not the invention of the iPhone that turn some cops bad,” he said. ​“It’s 400 years of history. It’s 400 years of excuses. And I think frankly, it’s 60 years of qualified immunity.”

He said state legislators can pretend that qualified or governmental immunity is a legal construct that lawmakers voted on at one point, and can now vote to undo.

That’s not the case, he said.

Governmental immunity is a common law understanding evolved by the U.S. Supreme Court that prevents officers accused of wrongdoing from going to trial and facing accusations of alleged harm unless if there is a judicial precedent with nearly the exact same fact pattern that resulted in a ruling against the officer.

“It’s a ridiculous standard,” he said. ​“It’s a ridiculous standard that has bipartisan support to remove.”

Porter took to Facebook Live again soon after the House took its vote on the final bill soon after 9 a.m.

“I’m pretty exhausted,” she said to the camera.

She paused, overcome by the past eight hours of debate — and the past 20 hours of being up at the state Capitol and working to try to win her colleagues’ support and urging Connecticut residents to email and call and text and post on social media to help push the bill past the finish line.

“But we have victory tonight, or should I say today.”

Many Republicans and some Democrats tried to talk the bill down, she said. They tried to strip the bill of key provisions, like the governmental immunity piece.

“Despite the opposition and the naysayers, despite the manipulation and the games and the politics, we did it,” she said. ​“We introduced a police accountability bill with governmental immunity.

“A bill with some teeth in it. A bill that is going to hold [accountable] not good cops, but some bad cops, the ones that are out there maiming, killing, and just totally disregarding the oath that they swore to serve and protect and uphold the law. Big victory, little victory, victory none the same. We did something in this building that hasn’t been done in a long time.”

She thanked her constituents who spent the night with her online, texting her, urging her to keep fighting for the bill to pass. She thanked her Democratic colleagues who voted in support of the bill and against the amendment that would have stripped the governmental immunity section. She also singled out for praise the one Republican who voted against the amendment that would have stripped Section 41 from the bill.

“We defeated the odds,” she said. ​“We did what they told us we couldn’t do.

“To whom much is given, much is required.”

In an interview with the Independent just before 10 a.m., Porter said that she has ​“full faith that the [state] Senate is going to deliver” and vote in support of the House bill next week.

“I will not stop believing now,” she said. ​“God didn’t bring us this far” for her to stop pushing now.

“Listen First, And Then Vote”

New Haven State Sen. Winfield (pictured), who has proposed and shepherded to passage a series of police reform bills over the past decade, told the Independent in a phone interview after the vote that he is confident that the bill can pass the Senate.

“We still have work to do,” he said.

Winfield said he’s ​“trying to stay focused on the bigger picture while also focusing on the immediate thing that we have in front of us.”

He said the police accountability bill is just one part of the ​“liberation work” that he and Porter and civil rights activists throughout New Haven and the state have been pushing for for years. That work includes fighting for good jobs and affordable health care too, he said, as well as police accountability.

Winfield also thanked his constituents for supporting him throughout the past week in particular, as he faced criticism after criticism from police union leaders and skeptical legislators who did not want to see the governmental immunity piece left in the bill.

Looking forward to next week’s Senate debate and vote, Winfield referenced a heartfelt Facebook Live video he posted earlier in the day (included in this article above) in which he talked about how personal the work of police accountability is to him.

To his colleagues in the Senate, he said, ​“I want them to listen to me when I speak. I’ve lived this. I am going to do everything I can to make clear to people what this is in the life of a person.

“I want them to listen, and then vote. I need them to listen first, and then vote.”

Governmental Immunity Changes

Following is the text of the section of the bill on governmental immunity, Section 41:

(a) As used in this section:

(1) ​“Law enforcement unit” has the same meaning as provided in section 7 – 294a of the general statutes; and

(2) ​“Police officer” has the same meaning as provided in section 7- 1946 294a of the general statutes.

(b) No police officer, acting alone or in conspiracy with another, shall deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws of this state, or of the equal privileges and immunities under the laws of this state, including, without limitation, the protections, privileges and immunities guaranteed under article first of the Constitution of the state.

(c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b) of this section may bring a civil action for equitable relief or damages in the Superior Court. A civil action brought for damages shall be triable by jury.

(d) In any civil action brought under this section, governmental immunity shall only be a defense to a claim for damages when, at the time of the conduct complained of, the police officer had an objectively good faith belief that such officer’s conduct did not violate the law. There shall be no interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s denial of the application of the defense of governmental immunity. Governmental immunity shall not be a defense in a civil action brought solely for equitable relief.

(e) In an action under this section, each municipality or law enforcement unit shall protect and save harmless any such police officer from financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs, if any, arising out of any claim, demand or suit instituted against such officer by reason of any act undertaken by such officer while acting in the discharge of the officer’s duties. In the event such officer has a judgment entered against him or her for a malicious, wanton or wilful act in a court of law, such municipality shall be reimbursed by such officer for expenses it incurred in providing such defense and shall not be held liable to such officer for any financial loss or expense resulting from such act.

(f) In any civil action brought under this section, if the court finds that a violation of subsection (b) of this section was deliberate, wilful or committed with reckless indifference, the plaintiff may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(g) A civil action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the cause of action accrues. Any notice of claim provision set forth in the general statutes, including, but not limited to, the provisions of subsection (d) of section 7 – 101a of the general statutes and subsection (a) of section 7 – 465 of the general statutes shall not apply to an action brought under this section. 

Highlights Summary

Here are some of the other specifics of HB604, as summarized in a release from the House Democrats office:

• The Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST) gains additional oversight and disciplinary powers. POST, which provides certification and trainings to officers statewide, will be reconstituted. Current membership will step down on December 31, 2020 and additional appointment criteria will be implemented such as a requirement that justice-impacted persons be members and the diversification of the size of towns represented. Six appointments will be made by legislative leaders. If a member misses 50% or more of meetings in calendar year, they lose their seat. POST will issue annual reporting on minority recruitment efforts based on data collected from local police departments across the state. AACPA also allows POST the ability to conduct hearings and the ability to suspend, censor, or decertify an officer. POST can make these determinations when an officer has engaged in conduct that undermines public confidence in law enforcement or when an officer uses excess or unjustifiable force. If an officer is de-certified by POST, they cannot be employed as a security guard.

• Mental health screenings and other training requirements are mandated for officers. Periodic mental health screenings will be required at a Chief’s discretion where there is a cause. A screening must be conducted no less than every 5 years and when an officer changes departments. Officers will also be required to take implicit bias trainings and follow crowd control policy yet-to-be developed by POST.

• Individuals providing police training at police departments or at an academy must be certified in their field of expertise, such as implicit bias.

• Uniform officers must have their name and badge number readily visible on their outermost garment. This does not apply to those undercover.

• The definition of ​“use of force” is updated. Use of force can only be justified under an objectively reasonable standard, meaning that an officer has exhausted all reasonable alternatives, that the force creates no significant risk of injury to a third party, and that such use of force is necessary. No tactic to restrain oxygen and blood flow to the head, including chokeholds and strangleholds, can be used unless it’s deemed necessary to protect oneself or save the life of someone else. Officers must intervene and report excesses use of force to their local police departments; whistleblower protections will be provided to those who do.

• An Office of the Inspector General (IG) is created. Housed under the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney’s Division of Criminal Justice, the IG would have the power to conduct use of force investigations with prosecutorial authority. The IG can refer cases to POST to determine sanctions and possible de-certification of officers. The IG would be nominated by the Chief State’s Attorney with a public hearing and confirmation hearing every 4 years required before the legislature’s Committee on Judiciary. The IG’s staff would include an associate attorney, chief investigator and possible administrator who can come from the State’s attorney office.