ACLU-CT Testifies for Police Accountability

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut supported three police accountability measures — including a bill that would set standards for Taser training and tracking — before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Monday, April 1, 2013.

House Bill 6628 would set minimum training requirements for police officers who use Tasers, require police to track and report each time a Taser is fired, and require police to get medical attention for the people they shock with Tasers. House Bill 6663 would set standards for police to accept complaints of misconduct from the public, and House Bill 6636 would require police to discard data acquired from license plate scanners after two weeks.

Testifying in favor of the Taser reform bill, ACLU of Connecticut Staff Attorney David McGuire told the committee that 11 people in Connecticut have died since 2005 after being Tasered by police. He read a short statement from the family of Marcus Brown, a 26-year-old man who died after being Tasered in the chest while handcuffed in the back of a police car in Waterbury in May 2011.

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a nationally known cardiologist and professor emeritus at Indiana University, spoke about his research, published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, that identified eight cases where Taser shocks to the chest caused fatal heart attacks. He said police need to be trained in how Tasers work and the risks associated with using them.

“Users need to be educated and trained in the application of Taser technology, be aware of potential complications, be judicious in its deployment and treat the device like a firearm, avoid the chest area if possible, avoid long and repeated trigger pulls because the number of charges that are delivered can then increase the risk for sudden cardiac arrest,” he said. “We don’t know how often sudden death does occur, though Amnesty International said there have been over 500 deaths associated with Taser administration” in the United States.

The bill also drew support from the NAACP of Connecticut. Muhammad Ansari, president of the Greater Hartford NAACP and political action chair of the Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches, pointed out that eight of the 11 people who died in Connecticut after being Tasered by police were people of color. “It’s at least a little bit ironic that this state has repealed its death penalty but still allows police to shoot people with a weapon that can kill, without any regulation or oversight,” he said.

Jeanne Leblanc, communications and education manager for the ACLU of Connecticut, testified on the police complaint bill, which would require police to accept and investigate all complaints from civilians about misconduct, including anonymous complaints. It would also prevent police from intimidating complainants by requiring sworn statements or threatening prosecution for false statements.

“The extraordinary authority that police officers wield, including the power to use deadly force, must be balanced by accountability,” she said. The bill includes many of the recommendations put forth in the ACLU of Connecticut’s 2012 report, Protect, Serve and Listen: Accepting Civilian Complaints at Connecticut Police Departments.

McGuire also testified about license plate scanners, explaining how the accumulation of vast amounts of scan data can allow police to track the movements of people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong. The bill would require that the data be discarded after two weeks unless needed for a criminal investigation.

Representatives of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association opposed all three bills, arguing that Taser regulation and rules for police complaints don’t require legislation but can be set as standards by the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council. They also suggested that they should be able to keep license plate scan data for at least five years and that it should be exempted from Freedom of Information law.

McGuire said five years of data retention would allow “retroactive surveillance of innocent people without a warrant, probable cause or judicial oversight.” He also suggested that exempting the data from FOI would prevent watchdog groups from determining how police are using it.