By Jesse Leavenworth
Hartford Courant
HARTFORD, Conn. — A bill that focuses on fired Connecticut cops and how they might continue careers in law enforcement sounds like “overkill,” a representative of the state’s largest police union said, but public safety leaders called the proposal vital to maintaining high standards.
The bill would retain current law that prevents police officers who are fired for “malfeasance” or “serious misconduct” and those who quit or retire while under investigation from being hired by another department. It adds language that says the Police Officer Standards and Training Council shall not certify such officers, while also allowing them an appeals process. The bill also amends the list of firing offenses for “serious misconduct.”
Testifying Thursday before the legislature’s public safety committee, state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner James Rovella and department attorney Colin Milne said the department fully supports the bill.
“It is vital that we hold our law enforcement to the highest standards,” the officials said, noting that an officer denied certification could appeal at a hearing before the Police Officer Standards and Training Council.
But Brian Anderson, legislative director for Council 4 AFSCME’s public safety chapter, said the union representing 2,000 police officers “is strongly opposed to making already onerous requirements even more so.”
“We ask you to consider context,” Anderson told the public safety panel. “Police accountability and transparency have been hashed over extensively for at least the last seven years by the General Assembly.”
Anderson listed requirements of the state’s police accountability law, including body cameras, curtailment of qualified immunity protections and creation of an Inspector General’s position to investigate cases involving deadly force by law enforcement.
“It has been made easier to fire a police officer. It has been made extremely difficult for an officer who made a mistake, albeit serious, to rehabilitate him or herself,” Anderson said. “POST has been given even more power to bar officers from employment.
“At what point is there overkill in monitoring, disciplining or calling into question the overall character of police officers?
“If this bill is retooled so that an officer who made a mistake on the job can have a reasonable chance to appeal a firing to POST, we would be for it. If it simply offers a hearing with no real chance for an officer to be redeemed, then we are against it. If it puts forward an even greater ability to dismiss officers from their career, that takes years to prepare for, then we are against it.”
Rep. Greg Howard, a Republican representing Stonington and North Stonington who is also a Stonington police officer, said the bill amends current law to give another chance to officers who may be guilty only of a bad decision.
The ranking member on the public safety committee noted the wide gulf between malfeasance, which might be abuse of sick time, and criminal behaviors under “serious misconduct.” Currently, Howard said, there’s no way for officers fired for lesser offenses to appeal decertification.
Current law says no law enforcement agency shall hire a police officer who was dismissed for malfeasance or other serious misconduct or who resigned or retired while under investigation. The law also says police departments must inform other departments and POST about officers who are terminated or quit during investigations.
The bill says POST may afford any police officer denied certification a hearing to determine whether the officer was exonerated or if the conduct at issue constituted malfeasance or serious misconduct. The bill also allows hearings for law enforcement agencies that would otherwise be prohibited from hiring a fired officer.
But Anderson testified that the bill “adds even more stringent standards to those mandating that a police officer be barred from ever being recertified.”
Under current law, “serious misconduct” means improper or illegal actions taken by a police officer in connection with such officer’s official duties that could result in a miscarriage of justice or discrimination, including, but not limited to, (A) a conviction of a felony, (B) fabrication of evidence, (C) repeated use of excessive force, (D) acceptance of a bribe, or (E) the commission of fraud.
The senate bill includes under serious misconduct “discrimination or a gross deviation of the generally accepted standards and behavior of a police officer,” including use of physical force in a manner found to not be justifiable after an investigation; failure to intervene or stop the use of force by another police officer that was found to not be justifiable; and intimidation or harassment causing injury based upon actual or perceived protected class membership, identity or expression.
Rep. Craig Fishbein, a Republican representing Cheshire and Wallingford, noted that a House bill has the same language. Fishbein said the police accountability law lacks specificity in some areas, and he and Howard have been focused on filling those gaps, including adding more definitive descriptions of police misconduct and allowing an appeals process for officers denied POST certification.
State Victim Advocate Natasha M. Pierre told the public safety committee said the proposed legislation would ensure that a police officer found guilty of serious misconduct or under investigation for such conduct “will not be able to simply go to the next town” and be hired as a cop again.
©2022 Hartford Courant.