Inspector General Candidates Answer ACLU of CT Questionnaire on Police Accountability and Racial Justice | ACLU of Connecticut

The Criminal Justice Commission is interviewing the final 2025 Connecticut Inspector General candidates Tuesday, April 29th at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Here's what the finalists had to say about police accountability and racial justice.

April 28, 2025 - 9:30am

In 2020, the ACLU of Connecticut helped lead the advocacy effort to pass a police accountability bill that would center ending systemic racism and violence in policing. Recognizing the urgent need for police accountability and transparency, the Connecticut General Assembly passed the bill, creating a new statewide prosecutor, called the Inspector General, tasked with investigating and prosecuting police misconduct.

When the final candidates were announced in 2021, we sent a survey to all four finalists to learn more about whether they would, if appointed, use the Inspector General role to value Black and Brown lives by holding police accountable for violence and other misconduct.

Now, with the announcement of former Inspector General Robert Devlin's retirement, the office is looking to fill this critical with someone who has demonstrated independence, integrity, and a commitment to fulfilling the obligations of the office. Once again, we've sent the final six candidates -- Robert Satti Jr., Leonard M. Crone, Eliot D. Prescott, Kevin A. Randolph, Kevin S. Russo, and Herman Woodard, Jr. -- a 15-question survey regarding systemic racism and violence in policing.

We've received five responses, which you can find below.

Please note that since sending the six finalists the questionnaire, Robert Satti Jr. has withdrawn his candidacy for Inspector General. Although he is no longer in the race, we have included his submitted questionnaire below for reference. His responses are not reflected in our candidate summary.

2025 Inspector General Questionnaire

15 Questions for Connecticut Inspector General Applicants

1. Do you believe that (a) the Inspector General must acknowledge racial disparities in policing, prosecution, incarceration, and the criminal justice system overall and (b) the Inspector General has a responsibility to take affirmative steps to end systemic racial disparities?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to both subparts and any explanation you wish to offer.

2. Do you believe police officers should be held criminally liable when they cause unnecessary physical harm of Connecticut residents?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

3. Do you believe police officers should be held criminally liable when they unnecessary kill Connecticut residents?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

4. Do you believe the current statutory standard for determining when police are allowed to use deadly physical force makes it clear that an officer is only allowed to use deadly physical force when it is absolutely necessary?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

5. Do you believe that the standard in Public Act 21-4 for determining when police are allowed to use deadly physical force, which took effect January 1, 2022, makes it clear that an officer is allowed to use deadly physical force only when it is absolutely necessary?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

6. Do you believe police officers should be protected from criminal liability when their use of physical force was reasonable under all the circumstances, but not absolutely necessary?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

7. Will you commit to holding police accountable by supporting policy proposals that change Connecticut's use of force standard to one in which killings by police are only allowed if it is clear that police did not, through their actions, create a situation in which deadly force was necessary?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

8. Will you commit to holding police accountable by supporting policy proposals that change Connecticut's use of force standard to one in which killings by police are only allowed if it is clear that the force used by police was the minimum necessary to resolve the situation?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

9. Will you commit to holding police accountable by supporting policy proposals that change Connecticut's use of force standard to one in which killings by police are only allowed if it is clear that the force used by police was necessary because all other available, effective alternatives had been exhausted?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

10. Will you commit to holding an open, public meeting in the community where a police use of deadly force occurred, within 30 days after publishing your report on the investigation, to present your report and provide the community an opportunity to publicly comment on it and/or the incident?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

11. When you investigate a matter, will you commit to investigating the impact the patterns, practices, and/or policies of law enforcement unit(s) involved had on the subject matter under your investigation?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer and any explanation you wish to offer.

12. Will you commit to making licensure recommendations, including decertification and suspension recommendations, to the Police Officer Standards and Training Council if you find, after complete investigation, that a police officer has:

used physical force unjustifiably;
engaged in conduct that undermines public confidence in law enforcement, including, but not limited to, discriminatory conduct, falsification of reports, or violating the Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act; or
violated any policy of the law enforcement unit employing the officer?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to all subparts and any explanation you wish to offer.

13. If, after a complete investigation, you find that a police officer (a) used physical force unjustifiably and/or (b) engaged in other criminal conduct, will you commit to pursuing justice and redress for such actions to the greatest extent of your discretion?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to all subparts and any explanation you wish to offer.

14. Will you commit to holding police accountable by (a) supporting the creation of a statewide "Brady List" available to the public upon request, and (b) ensuring police officers that are on the statewide "Brady List" are decertified by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to all subparts and any explanation you wish to offer.

15. Will you commit to fairness and transparency by supporting policy proposals that require uniform policies and procedures to be promulgated by the Division of Criminal Justice Advisory Board for all 13 state's attorneys?

Please provide a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to all subparts and any explanation you wish to offer.

Summary of Applicants' Answers

We received five responses back from the six final candidates. Since he has withdrawn his candidacy from Inspector General, Robert Satti Jr.'s responses are not included below. Full responses are attached below this chart.

Issue	Herman Woodard Jr.	Kevin Russo	Leonard Crone	Kevin Randolph
Acknowledges racial inequities in the criminal justice system?	Yes. Affirms IG must take affirmative steps to rectify.	Yes. IG should ensure nondiscriminatory practices.	Yes.	Partial Yes. Acknowledges historical disparities says jurisidiction-dependent.
Supports police liability for unnecessary harm or deaths they cause?	Yes. Clear support for prosecution.	Yes. Supports liability under statute.	Yes, but only if unjustified under statute.	Yes to prosecuting unjustified deadly force but not “uneccessary harm.”
Supports absolutely necessary standard (police should only use deadly force when absolutely necessary to prevent harm)?	No. Says current law doesn’t define necessity as absolute. IG should enforce the statute as it stands, and any changes should be made by the legislature.	No. Says law defines necessity, but not as absolute and IG must follow law as written.	Implied. Believes that the use of physical force, especially deadly force, must be absolutely necessary to be reasonable.	No. Repeats statutory language.
Supports reforms to limit use of deadly force?	Somewhat. Will enforce but not push.	Selective. Supports some reforms.	Selective. Supports some reforms.	Partial No. Says would “analyze” proposals, but offers no affirmative commitment.
Commits to community meetings after use of deadly force?	Yes. Emphasizes transparency.	Sometimes. Case-by-case.	Yes.	Only if requested.
Will examine police patterns/practices?	Yes. Commits to doing so.	Yes. Believes they influence conduct.	Yes.	Maybe. Might consider.
Supports public access to police misconduct records (Brady List)?	No. Outside IG scope.	No. Raises fairness issues.	Yes.	No. Waits for legislation.
Supports decertification for misconduct?	Yes. Supports accountability.	Yes. Commits if misconduct found.	Yes.	Partially. Limited scope.
Supports uniform policies for prosecutors?	Yes. Commits to transparency.	Yes. If IG duties not compromised.	Yes.	Noncommittal.