Standing Up for Privacy and Police Accountability

In testimony before the Judiciary Committee on Monday, the ACLU of Connecticut called for oversight on how law enforcement officers use drones for surveillance, as well as how they patrol schools, accept complaints about misconduct and treat people taking photographs and videos of police activity.

Staff Attorney David McGuire testified in support of House Bill 5217, An Act Concerning Use of Unmanned Aircraft. The legislation would permit Connecticut law enforcement to use unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, with a warrant or in emergencies. But police would not otherwise be able to deploy drones to monitor the public without probable cause.

McGuire told the committee that drone technology is advancing rapidly, and that drones can already be equipped with video cameras, microphones, night-vision cameras, heat-sensing devices, facial recognition technology, radar, license plate readers, tear gas and Taser-like weapons. Their small size and maneuverability allow them to fly close to ground level, where they are capable of spying into people's yards and even through their windows, he said.

"We think this is a useful technology. It can help law enforcement. It can help solve crimes," McGuire said. "But we shouldn't just give law enforcement cart blanche authority to do whatever they want with it, because right now there are no regulations on it."

The bill would also ban drones from carrying weapons and would increase the penalties for crimes that are committed using drones. The bill would not apply to private use of drones, and McGuire warned that regulation of private use must respect the public's First Amendment right to collect information in public places.

Earlier in the hearing, Legal Director Sandra Staub testified in support of Senate Bill 54, An Act Concerning Collaboration Between Boards of Education and Law Enforcement Personnel. It would require school districts and police, before deploying a school resource officer, to sign a memorandum of understanding that distinguishes between crimes police will handle and disciplinary matters that school officials will deal with administratively. The same bill passed the state House of Representatives in 2013 by a vote of 114 to 20, but failed to reach the floor of the Senate.

Several studies have shown that student arrests increase dramatically when police offers are assigned to patrol schools and that children who are members of minority groups are arrested disproportionately, Staub said. Memoranda of understanding have been proven to sharply reduce those arrest rates, by 44 percent in Hartford, for example, and 31 percent in Bridgeport, she said.

"The diversion of children away from the entrance to what we call the school-to-prison pipeline is good for everyone – the children, the schools, the criminal justice system and society in general," Staub said. Hartford Police Chief James Rovella also testified in favor of the bill, saying the results of the memorandum in Hartford have been all positive.

Executive Director Andrew Schneider testified in support of Senate Bill 55, An Act Concerning Complaints that Allege Misconduct by Law Enforcement Agency Personnel. It would set standards for how police departments accept complaints from civilians about police misconduct. In a 2012 study, Protect, Serve and Listen: Accepting Civil Complaints at Connecticut Police Departments, the ACLU of Connecticut found that many police departments in the state set barriers to accepting such complaints.

"This should not be a controversial proposal," Schneider told the committee. "It promotes nothing more than the standards recommended and supported by law enforcement experts, namely the Department of Justice, the International Associations of Chiefs of Police and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies."

The same legislation passed the state House of Representatives, 124 to 9, in 2013 but did not reach the Senate floor for a vote.

The ACLU of Connecticut also submitted written testimony supporting House Bill 5060, An Act Concerning the Recording of Police Activity by the Public. The bill would affirm in state law the public’s constitutional right to record police officers carrying out their official duties.

"Too often police officers threaten and arrest bystanders for taking photographs and video of police activity, even when those bystanders are not interfering with the police in any way, " McGuire wrote. "When charges are dismissed and phones or cameras are returned, their photos and videos have often been erased. Even when bystanders are not arrested, police often confiscate their phones and cameras."

All four bills will be subject to a committee vote and submitted for consideration by the House and Senate.