Addressing the Passage of Police Accountability Legislation

July 29, 2020

I wanted to be sure to let you know where I stand regarding the passage of House Bill 6004, An Act Concerning Police Accountability.

H.B. 6004, which was passed July 24th by a vote of 86-58, is the latest in a string of police accountability and transparency legislation that has been passed in Connecticut in recent years.

The final version of this bill, which I was able to support, took into account the valid concerns of municipal officials, the law enforcement community, and the community at large. I want to take the time to explain this important and complex piece of legislation, and to address how this legislation will affect the residents of Farmington, as well as to clear up some misconceptions that may have found their way into the public sphere.

First, here are some of the measures contained in this piece of legislation:

  • Provides additional oversight, recruitment and disciplinary powers to the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST);
  • Increases mental health screenings and training requirements for officers;
  • Establishes by statute the right to bring a civil cause of action against a police officer for depriving a person of certain constitutional or other legal rights including equal protection of the laws.  The bill reduces the ability of an officer to claim governmental immunity in some, but not all, circumstances.  This is the Qualified Immunity section of the bill; 
  • Updates "Use of Force" definition;
  • Creates an Office of the Inspector General (IG) with prosecutorial authority.

With regard to the Qualified Immunity section, there are crucial differences between the language we approved on Friday morning and what was in the bill in its initial form. The drafters of the bill listened to the varied voices that provided input and revised the section on immunity so that only officers found guilty of 'willful, wanton, or malicious' behavior will be personally liable if they are found to have committed a constitutional violation. This is a marked difference from stripping qualified immunity completely. And the final bill as written is careful to balance and limit individual officer liability and municipal liability.

Specifically, governmental immunity is still available to a police officer in an action seeking damages if, at the time of the conduct complained about, 'the officer had an objectively good faith belief that his or her conduct did not violate the law'.

In these court actions, each municipality or law enforcement unit must protect and save harmless the defendant police officer from financial loss and expense.  Most municipalities have existing insurance policies in place to cover potential lawsuits against a number of municipal officials and positions.

If a court judgment is entered against an individual police officer for a malicious, wanton, or willful act, (1) the officer must reimburse the municipality for his or her defense expenses and (2) the municipality must not be held liable to the officer for any financial loss or expense resulting from the officer's act.  This mirrors existing limitations and exceptions to municipal liability.

Recognizing that this is a complex and significant issue, the effective date of this section of the bill is one year from now, July 1, 2021.  Also, the bill directs the existing Task Force on Police Transparency and Accountability to make recommendations to the legislature by January 1st of 2021 related to the implementation and effect of the police liability provisions, including the insurance issues.

In addition, police officers who bravely serve our community deserve to have both their physical and mental health recognized as a priority. Therefore, it was important to include in this legislation the ability for officers to receive behavioral health treatments when they need it. This not only helps officers in need, but also the community at large. Officers will also receive substance-abuse screenings, which will further ensure the safety and well-being of the officers, their departments, and the public.

I supported this legislation because I believe that it represents a thoughtful and important step forward in ensuring protection of the constitutional rights of all of our state's residents, while bolstering support for the honorable and brave men and women of law enforcement.