Researcher: GM Page 1 4/6/21
OLR Bill Analysis
sHB 6598
AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST HIRING
POLICE OFFICERS DISMISSED FOR MALFEASANCE OR WHO
RESIGNED OR RETIRED WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
SUMMARY
Existing law prohibits a law enforcement unit from hiring a police
officer who was previously employed by the unit or in another
jurisdiction and (1) was dismissed for malfeasance or serious
misconduct calling into question his or her fitness to serve as an officer
or (2) resigned or retired during an investigation into such conduct.
This bill:
1. expressly prohibits the Police Office Standards and Training
Council (POST) from certifying these officers;
2. allows POST to hold hearings for units and officers to determine
whether a specific hiring or certification denial is improper; and
3. expands the type of actions considered “serious misconduct,”
principally to include taking improper or illegal actions that
could result in a gross deviation from generally accepted police
officer standards and behavior.
Existing law requires a unit, if it knows that such an officer is
applying to another unit, to inform POST and the other unit about the
officer’s dismissal, resignation, or retirement. By expanding the
definition of “serious misconduct,” the bill correspondingly expands
when these units must report to POST and other units.
Under existing law and the bill, the hiring, certification, and
reporting provisions do not apply to officers exonerated from
malfeasance or serious misconduct allegations. Additionally, the bill
does not preclude POST from suspending, cancelling, or revoking an 2021HB-06598-R000273-BA.DOCX
Researcher: GM Page 2 4/6/21
officer’s certification based on its existing statutory authority.
Lastly, the bill makes technical and conforming changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2021
OFFICER CERTIFICATION
The bill explicitly prohibits POST from certifying any officer who (1)
was dismissed for malfeasance or other serious misconduct, as defined
below, or (2) resigned or retired during an investigation for such
conduct. Under existing law, unchanged by the bill, “malfeasance” has
its common meaning (i.e., a wrongful, unlawful, or dishonest act).
By law, POST enforces professional standards for certifying and
decertifying police officers, among other duties. Existing law allows
POST to cancel or revoke a police officer’s certification for several
actions included in the below definition of serious misconduct, such as
fraud, document falsification, or felony convictions (CGS § 7-294d).
POST must (1) investigate if it believes there is a reasonable basis for
cancelling or revoking an officer’s certificate and (2) institute
cancelation or revocation procedures if it determines probable cause
exists (Conn. Agencies Reg. § 7-294e-11).
POST HEARINGS
The bill allows POST to hold a hearing, in accordance with the
Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), for any (1) law
enforcement unit prohibited from hiring a person by the provisions
described above and (2) police officer denied certification by the bill.
The hearing’s purpose must be to determine whether the (1) police
officer resigned or retired while under investigation for malfeasance or
other serious misconduct, (2) police officer was exonerated of each
allegation of malfeasance or other serious misconduct, or (3) conduct at
issue constituted malfeasance or serious misconduct.
Under existing law, unchanged by the bill, before cancelling or
revoking an officer’s certification, POST must (1) give the officer notice
and an adequate opportunity for a hearing and (2) make a finding of
the improper conduct by clear and convincing evidence. Any hearing 2021HB-06598-R000273-BA.DOCX
Researcher: GM Page 3 4/6/21
to suspend, cancel, or revoke a certification must be conducted in
accordance with the UAPA, and any certificate holder aggrieved by a
POST decision may appeal to court under the UAPA (CGS § 7-294d).
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Under current law, “serious misconduct” means an officer’s
improper or illegal actions connected with official duties that could
cause a miscarriage of justice or discrimination, such as a felony
conviction, evidence fabrication, repeated use of excessive force, bribe
acceptance, or fraud.
The bill expands the definition of “serious misconduct” to include
an officer’s improper or illegal actions connected with official duties
that could cause a gross deviation from generally accepted police
officer standards and behavior. It also expands the type of actions that
explicitly constitute serious misconduct, to include:
1. evidence falsification;
2. failure to intervene or stop unreasonable, excessive, or illegal
use of force by another officer; and
3. intimidation or harassment causing injury based upon actual or
perceived protected class membership, identity, or expression.
Additionally, the bill changes when a police officer’s use of force
rises to “serious misconduct.” Under current law, “serious
misconduct” includes repeated use of excessive force. Under the bill, it
instead includes the use of physical force found to be unjustifiable after
a statutory investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
(By law, these OIG investigations are limited to circumstances in which
a person dies as a result of an officer’s use of force (CGS § 51-277a).)
COMMITTEE ACTION
Public Safety and Security Committee
Joint Favorable
Yea 25 Nay 0 (03/18/2021)