Christine Palm

Very little in the public policy arena has ignited people’s passions as much as has HB 6004, An Act Concerning Police Accountability. Please bear with me while I try to set the record straight about what this bill does and does not do. While lengthy, I hope this E-blast will explain why I opposed the amendment to remove the “qualified immunity” clause and why I supported the underlying bill.

The key word here is accountability – holding people responsible for their actions. It’s what we expect of our partners, our employers, our government officials, our schools, and even our children. Why should law enforcement be exempt from this standard? Therefore, in both its intent and execution, this bill holds police officers accountable for how they conduct themselves in the line of duty. To me, this is a reasonable thing to ask – especially at this time, when the nation is reeling from documented cases of excessive force, and huge numbers of people, from big cities to small towns like those I represent, are clamoring for change.

This is in no way an “anti-cop” bill, as I have heard repeated over and over. In fact, it separates the wheat from the chaff: rather than harm responsible, professional police officers, who I believe make up the majority of most forces, the bill offers concrete ways to rid departments of the “bad actors” who tarnish the reputations of their law-abiding and law-enforcing brethren.

So, in the interest of clarity and in the hopes that some of you who are repeating disinformation will reconsider, here are some myths, and the facts that dispel them:

Myth: The bill was rushed and crafted without public input.

Fact: As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I participated in a 12-hour public hearing (held virtually) at which the public expressed opinions and gave testimony. The drafters of the bill held several meetings with groups representing the police and revised the language repeatedly to accommodate their concerns.

Myth: Republican legislators were cut out of the process.

Fact: To watch the House and Senate testimony, one could easily come to that conclusion. On the contrary, the bill was negotiated over several weeks with the ranking (Republican) leaders of the Judiciary Committee at the table every step of the way. Bill drafters (Democrats) Sen. Gary Winfield and Rep. Steve Stafstrom made sure (Republicans) Rep. Rosa Rebimbas and Sen. John Kissel were involved in each draft of the process.

Myth: The bill discourages openness.

Fact: Again, the opposite is true. It allows for public review of police discipline records and provides more local civilian oversight of police departments through citizen review boards. It also creates a mechanism for independent investigations of deadly police shootings.

Myth: Changing the “qualified immunity” clause will destroy officers’ livelihoods.

Fact: Qualified immunity does not go away under this bill. It will continue to protect officers who had a good faith belief they were not violating anyone’s Constitutional equal protection rights. It will not take away officers’ homes or savings. If an officer makes an honest mistake, meaning they had a good faith belief they were doing the right thing, then they can claim qualified immunity. Essentially, it brings the justifiable use of deadly force standard in line with federal law.

Myth: This bill will cause officers to have to get personal liability insurance.

Fact: Nothing in the bill creates a new personal liability for officers. Under current law, the state and towns must hold officers harmless for government actions that are not “willful, wanton, or reckless.” Police are only held accountable when malicious intent is found. In other words, only the worst of the worst will be held personally responsible. No officer who acts in a reasonable manner – including under duress – has anything to worry about unless that officer’s action is proven to be willful, wanton, or reckless and knowingly violates a person’s Constitutional rights.

Myth: This bill will lead to an increase in crime because of retirements and difficulty recruiting new officers

Fact: This bill may, in fact, change the face of policing, and I welcome that change. It encourages the recruitment of more minority officers, so if changes enacted by the bill result in more people of color – and women – becoming officers, so much the better. Americans’ trust in police is on the decline. Fully 90% of Blacks believe police treat racial and ethnic groups differently, compared to 57% of whites. When people don’t trust police, they don’t call the police or report crimes. This bill seeks to change that by banning chokeholds, and by increasing training, transparency, and accountability. It’s important to note that the SEBAC agreement made a “fiscal cliff” that actually encourages retirement of unionized officers by 2022, so many would have taken advantage of that deadline and retired anyway. (And here’s where I would ask anti-union, anti-State employee folks to reconsider their hard line: you can’t support unionized State law enforcement but deny other workers that same right.)

Myth: The bill defunds the police.

Fact: The bill does not defund or even reduce funding for police. In fact, it provides $4 million in new bonding authority so that towns and cities can acquire dashboard and body cameras. For the record, I find “defund the police” a misleading and unhelpful slogan. Redirecting funds in a more proactive way is more accurate.

Myth: Lowering the qualified immunity standard puts a burden on towns.

Fact: The bill does permit someone to now sue a town for certain constitutional violations under a lesser standard than before. Again, these lawsuits must be defended by the town (no personal liability for officers at all for these suits) and if they lose, they have to pay for the damages. In isolation, I would agree that this could raise premiums for towns if they can be subject to more lawsuits. BUT, the other parts of the bill should help avoid these types of suits because of additional training, mandatory cameras and critically, the ability (for the first time ever) to allow towns to more easily fire officers who continually are subject to disciplinary issues. I’d argue that the balance of these items should keep premiums in check and give towns the incentive to make sure constitutional violations are closely monitored and tracked to prevent such lawsuits. In summary, it gives cities and towns an easier path to fire the “bad apples” or decertify those cops engaged in conduct unbecoming of law enforcement, such as using excess force or exhibiting racist behavior.

Myth: It is unfair to officers with mental health issues.

Fact: It’s quite the opposite. Recognizing the trauma some officers experience in the line of duty, the bill increases police officers’ access to mental health care and protects them against retaliation for seeking it. This is critical in a culture that tends to discourage men from acknowledging their emotional needs. Additionally, it requires periodic drug testing and behavioral health screening of officers. Often, police are traumatized by another officer’s actions but are confused about how to act. This bill now gives so-called “witnessing” officers clarity by requiring them to intervene when they see a colleague use excess force, and protects those officers who report such wrongdoing.

Myth: The bill favors Black people.

Fact: For generations, Blacks have disproportionately suffered violence at the hands of law enforcement. While this bill does not discriminate in their favor, it does seek to redress wrongs by requiring implicit bias training, training in de-escalation methods for crowd control, banning police departments from having quotas for pedestrian stops, ending the practice of allowing police to pull over Black drivers and searching their car without cause, and increasing penalties for making a false police report based on race, gender, national origin or sexual identity. (For example, the now famous case of the woman walking her dog in Central Park and calling the cops on the Black ornithologist.) I believe anyone uncomfortable with any of this needs to reflect on their own white privilege.

Click HERE to watch my full remarks on the House floor during the debate on the police accountability legislation.

Finally, I would urge all of us not to see this as a politically motivated effort. Rather, it is a sincere effort to help eradicate systemic racism in our system of law enforcement. It should not feel threatening to any white person, or law-abiding, professional and compassionate officer. Because I honestly believe we are our brother’s and sister’s keepers, I voted on a bill that will improve the safety of people of color, and will rid our municipal and state police forces of the bad actors who tarnish the names of all the honorable police officers out there who have my gratitude and respect.