UPDATE: This story was updated at 8:30 pm July 24 to correct a party affiliation for Democratic State Representative Raghib Allie-Brennan.

* * * * *

Newtown's legislative delegation was quick to respond with comments to The Newtown Bee following a marathon special session that saw several bills passed in short order — and the most controversial measure on police reform eventually passing around 9 am on July 24 after more than seven hours of debate.

The Connecticut Mirror reported soon after the session ended Friday morning that the state House of Representatives voted to pass an ambitious proposal to reframe the training, oversight, and accountability of the police profession under intense scrutiny in Connecticut and across the county since a police officer killed George Floyd two months ago in Minneapolis.

After beginning an overnight debate at 1:19 am, the House staggered towards the finish line at 9 am, with the Democratic majority managing to reach a fragile consensus. The measure passed on nearly a party-line vote of 86-58. The House then immediately adjourned its special session, leaving the Senate with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition when it convenes Tuesday.

The House adjournment means any Senate revisions would kill the bill.

With Republican opposition hardening and some Democratic support teetering, the measure’s backers worked Thursday and Friday to reclaim a narrative that had shifted away from the need to protect communities of color from police bias to Republican assertions that the bill would endanger police officers and expose them to frivolous litigation.

Rep Steve Stafstrom (D-129), who explained the bill to the House as the co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said the bill before the group was "not anti-cop."

“We understand that change is hard, but oftentimes, change is also necessary,” he added.

A Republican amendment that would have stripped the bill of language limiting the qualified immunity against litigation now enjoyed by police officers failed on a rare tie vote, 72-72 with local Reps Mitch Bolinsky (R-106) and JP Sredzinski (R-112) in support, and Rep Raghib Allie-Brennan (D-2) opposing. The loss complicated chances for passage, since striking the language would have eased concerns of some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Rep Sredzinski, who works closely with police and law enforcement agencies in his job as Stratford's Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor, and as a ranking member of the legislature's Public Safety Committee said, "I take our public safety very seriously."

"We spent weeks working on a bipartisan approach to the concept of police reform; we spent several days negotiating; we spent the last 24 hours strategizing a solution but ultimately came up short," Sredzinski said. "This legislation makes our police more vulnerable and our state less safe. Especially with the removal of qualified immunity, this is a major concern for our law enforcement officers."

Anticipating Pushback

Part of Rep Bolinsky's extended response indicated that he "heard loud and clear from many Newtown residents, municipal leaders, and dozens of law enforcement officers who either serve our town or live as our neighbors.

"A solid majority made it clear that they like the quiet, safe community we call home and appreciate knowing Newtown’s police have their backs," Bolinsky said. "While I also heard from about a dozen folks asking me to vote to defund the police and eliminate qualified immunity, the overwhelming sentiment was we, in return, should have [police officers'] backs, too."

Bolinsky said he "knew there would be some pushback" if he voted no, "but I also was convinced that the bill would cost our town some of its police, leaving us less safe and, potentially, exposing taxpayers to millions of dollars in ligation by eliminating [immunity that is] generally granted to nearly every public service employee."

The Newtown lawmaker said the "bill was too important to rush through without public hearings and the full legislative committee process."

"Out of respect for all the good officers who put their lives on the line every day to keep all members of the public safe, we needed to get this right. But, when the entire bipartisan process broke down, the bill began changing every hour for a day and a half," Bolinsky said. "It became an unwieldy mix of good policy that was overwritten with unrelated anti-law enforcement measures that did not address the underlying issues of fairness and equity under the law."

In the end, Bolinsky said he stands by his No vote on HB-6004, and that he hopes "to be part of the conversations to work it to evolve it into an effective, fair and balanced set of laws that ultimate, levels the social justice playing field.”

Rep Allie-Brennan replied to The Bee's request with a lengthy statement he also published on his Facebook page, that said prior to the vote, he had extensive conversations with friends in law enforcement, as well as law enforcement leadership in Bethel, Danbury, Redding, and Newtown, as well as members of the community.

"A thread consistent through every conversation is the bond of trust between law enforcement and many within our communities is damaged, but not [irreparable]. Restoring that bond — on both sides — is critical, and we must take steps to help make that happen," Allie-Brennan said. "What Connecticut needs is reform that will ensure a small number of bad actors can’t discredit the good work done by the majority of our police officers."

In regard to the controversial qualified immunity provision in the bill, Allie-Brennan said establishing the power of accountability and the existence of consequences for egregiously bad behavior, is critical to repairing the bond of trust between law enforcement and our communities

"Some law enforcement officials are concerned that if qualified immunity is removed, police officers may fail to act as otherwise necessary for fear of being sued," he continued. "What this bill will do is create a new cause of action for a victim or victim's family to sue when someone abuses their position as a law enforcement official. Responding to law enforcement concerns and to allow room for any adjustments, I have also fought to have this section be enacted July 1, 2021 and applicable to any cause of action arising from an incident committed on or after July 1, 2021."

Calling his vote "a difficult decision," Allie-Brennan added that he saw the passage of this measure as a step toward healing in the wake of how he has seen law enforcement engage with communities, particularly communities of color.

Sweeping Reforms

House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) urged his caucus to reject the GOP amendment, saying the bill set a standard for limiting immunity in state law similar to the existing standard in federal cases — misconduct would have to be “malicious, wanton or willful.”

The bill would make sweeping reforms aimed at holding police accountable for misconduct, answerable to a new inspector general and local civilian review boards. It sets new standards for the use of force and limited the ability of police to search vehicles during the motor vehicle stops.

In the new proposal, authorities could only use deadly force when they had exhausted all reasonable alternatives, reasonably believed the force creates no significant risk of injury to a third party, and reasonably believes such use of force to be necessary.

When determining whether an officer acted reasonably, officials would consider whether the person killed had a deadly weapon, and whether the officer either heightened or attempted to deescalate the situation. Officers who witness their peers acting in an "unreasonable" manner will be required to intervene or will be subject to the same punishment.

Chokeholds would be banned except when necessary to protect someone from the imminent threat of death.

The inspector general would have the ability to issue subpoenas so they can obtain documents and compel testimony from otherwise uncooperative municipalities or police departments.

The Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council can revoke an officer’s certification if an officer behaves in a way that undermines the public’s confidence in law enforcement, such as the use of unjustifiable or excessive physical force. The council can also suspend an officer for up to 45 days.

State police would be required to be certified through the council. Currently, POST certifies municipal police, not state troopers.

POST would also expand its instruction to include implicit bias training, to teach officers to recognize and mitigate unconscious biases against certain populations they are sworn to serve, and work with other state agencies to come up with a statewide policy for how police officers should manage crowds.

Such a policy would also identify the documentation police must provide after a confrontation with a civilian in a crowd management incident.

The bill would require the use of body and dash cameras for all municipal and state police officers and troopers. It is expected to cost at least $8 million in the first year, to buy the equipment and data storage services.

Local Municipal Impact

Newtown First Selectman Dan Rosenthal said he generally supported most of the points in the draft legislation, but was concerned that the bill did not include a provision permitting police supervisors to be in a different union than the officers they manage.

"It's generally against practice to write up a fellow union member," Rosenthal said. "So when you talk about bad eggs, you can have folks not being written up when they should be, or moved through a disciplinary process as they should. That's difficult to achieve when you have officers and supervisors in the same union, not that it's an issue with our department."

One of the first selectman's concerns was whether there is general understanding that qualified immunity applies to civil cases, not criminal action.

"People are still able to sue. The bar is set and I think the legal community knows there needs to be a viable case," Rosenthal said, adding that many lawsuits involving police and municipalities and police agencies reach settlements.

Allie-Brennan's statement also spoke to that point saying, "The courts will still dismiss frivolous lawsuits from the outset. The offenses that trigger the limits on qualified immunity must be deliberate and extremely serious — such as false arrest, sexual assault of a detainee, or murder."

Nonetheless, Rosenthal countered saying, "This will make officers personally responsible, and they'll have to buy [errors and omissions] insurance. And I have concerns around whether municipalities will actually be able to be insured — so I think this [provision] needs a lot more vetting — and I'm not sure it makes communities safer in the process.

"You'll definitely see more costly litigation that will fall to the taxpayer," he added. "I'm not saying that people don't have the right to sue — they do already."

Police Commission Chairman Joel Faxon reacted to the house vote saying, "I support the goals of the legislation because overall the bill will improve policing accountability and force a technology upgrade of municipalities — unlike Newtown — who have not been in the forefront of policing innovation through mandating body worn cameras, for example. We will have to wait and see on some of the more controversial components of the legislation — like the qualified immunity issue — that still has to get through the state Senate."

Looking Toward Tuesday

As the bill shifts to the senate, which is scheduled to meet Tuesday, July 28, Senator Tony Hwang, whose 28th District includes Newtown, commended the House of Representatives for their work and deliberation on police accountability reform.

"Having watched the majority of the House debate, I found this process, while being sensitive to the additional precautions we must all make during the pandemic, was still thoughtful and emotional — however it did feel rushed," Hwang told The Newtown Bee.

“In these unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic times, the legislature is using innovative but untested methods and hastily written legislative language to affect some major changes to Connecticut State law," Hwang said. "We cannot let the pandemic or the altered atmosphere allow us to rush through these expansive bills. These are important matters that require careful consideration, public input, and proper process."

The senator said there are many valid issues surrounding the necessary police accountability and social justice reform, and that changes to current policies and awareness to both are important and necessary.

"The proposed amendment to remove the qualified immunity stipulation deserves our special attention as it failed due to the 72-72 vote," Hwang continued. "The emotional nature and the legal ramifications discussed through the preceding debate addressed how qualified immunity impacts [state] residents of all races as well as local and state police forces both financially and personally, all in addition to the potential impact on public safety and protection."

As he heads into the senate session Tuesday, Hwang said, "such important policy decisions deserve a transparent and engaged process to anticipate and consider possible costly and potentially dangerous unintended consequences," and that he and his Senate colleagues "must have a thoughtful, respectful discussion on police accountability reform and carefully consider the potential short and long term impact of including or not including qualified immunity.”

This report incorporated CT Mirror content from Kelan Lyons and Mark Pazniokis.