So You Want to Know What’s in the Police Reform Bill?

Earlier this evening, the Conference Committee working to harmonize the House and Senate police reform bills passed in the summer released their much-awaited final report: S.2963: An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth.

Shortest take: The bill creates a POST Commission with fewer voices for real police accountability than in the Senate bill, establishes a lot of new commissions that may not actually produce anything, creates new regulations on the use of force with various strength (stronger on facial surveillance on chokeholds, pretty loophole-ridden elsewhere), makes notable strides on juvenile justice (from expungement to school policing), bans racial profiling, and lacks meaningful reforms on qualified immunity. (A lot of ups and downs in that sentence.)

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) IN THE FINAL BILL:

  • Expanded access to juvenile records expungement
  • Stronger language around protecting students from profiling (with some unfortunate caveats, though)
  • Making school resource officers (SROs) optional for school districts
  • Ban on racial profiling

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) *NOT* IN THE BILL:

  • Strong limitations on qualified immunity doctrine (The bill only limits QI in case of decertified officer, as in House bill, and creates a commission on QI.)
  • Requirement of a democratic process around municipal acquisition of military equipment
  • Investment of funds equivalent to savings on incarceration into workforce development and job training/opportunities
  • Strong representation from civil rights groups and impacted communities on the police standards & training commission

GOOD THINGS (HOUSE-ONLY) IN THE BILL

  • Language actually banning chokeholds (unlike the weak Senate language)
  • Stronger language around no-knock warrants (although loopholes still abound)
  • Facial surveillance technology ban (as opposed to just a moratorium) 

Okay, let’s dig deeper, section by section.

Section 1: Commissions —  Creation of Commissions on the Status of African Americans, Status of Latinos/Latinas, Status of those with disabilities, Status of Black men and boys (pp. 1-15)

Section 2: Public records — Elimination of personnel records from public records law exemption (page 15)

Section 3-25, 27: Police Training & Certification Committee (pp. 16-22): This section makes some minor text changes to existing law to reflect the new bill and sets some requirements for police training, such as…

  • requirement of de-escalation training, promotion of “procedural justice,” alternatives to the use of force in interacting with minors
  • requirement of training related to interacting with victims, witnesses, or suspects with mental illness, substance use disorder, trauma history, or developmental or intellectual disabilities
  • requirement of de-escalation training with regard to protests
  • requirement of cultural competency training
  • training for school resource officers with regard to legal standards for police interaction with minors, child and adolescent cognitive development, trauma/behavioral addiction/mental illness/developmental disabilities, conflict resolution and diversion, and de-escalation. Also with regard to hate crime identification, anti-racism, and bullying. Requirement of consultation with experts on child and adolescent development and child trauma and with educators and 415attorneys experienced in juvenile and education law and preventing and addressing youth hate crimes in developing such training.

Unfortunately, however, the police training and certification committee consists entirely of law enforcement or their designees (See pp. 39-40 in Section 30).

Section 26: Facial/biometric surveillance (pp. 22-26): This section bans the use of facial recognition surveillance absent express authorization and provides language governing the role of the Registry of Motor Vehicles in facial surveillance. Section 105 (see below) creates a commission to explore that further.

Section 30 — Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission — Composition  (pp. 26-50)

In the conference bill, the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, i.e., the commission in charge of certification and decertification, would have 9 members (no more than 3 of whom would come from police officers).

Here’s how that breaks down:

  • 3 of them would be appointed by the Governor
    • 1 police chief
    • 1 retired justice of the superior court
    • 1 social worker from a list of 5 nominations from NASW-MA
  • 3 of them would be appointed by the AG
    • 1 law enforcement officer below the rank of sergeant
    • 1 law enforcement officer from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (MAMLEO)
    • 1 attorney licensed to practice law in the commonwealth appointed from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the civil rights and social justice section council of the Massachusetts Bar Association
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed jointly by the governor and AG (with 1 from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts commission against discrimination, no specifications on the other 2).

The bill includes House language requiring demographic representativeness (“…shall include people of color and women, at least in such proportion as these groups exist in the commonwealth’s population”) and geographical diversity (“The members of the commission shall represent diverse geographic areas of the commonwealth, including urban, rural and suburban areas.”

Like the Senate bill, the conference bill spells out some necessary expertise for the civilian members of the POST commission (“law enforcement practice and training, criminal law, civil rights law, the criminal justice system, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques, or social science fields related to race or bias”).

The House POST Commission had less police representation than the Senate POST Commission (2 out of 7 vs. 7 out of 15), but it also had less guaranteed representation from those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (0 out of 7 vs. 8 out of 15). The composition here is somewhere in between: police representation (3 out of 9) falls in the middle of the Senate and House bill, as does the representation for those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (again, 3 out of 9). Unfortunately, there’s a real loss with the exclusion of the NAACP, ACLU, and Lawyers for Civil Rights–as well as those directly impacted–who had seats in the Senate bill but not the House. 

The Senate POST Commission, although having more police presence, would have had a likely progressive majority (4 civil rights, 2 directly impacted, 2 from the Black and Latino Caucus); the POST Commission here does not.

Section 30 — POST Commission —  suspension & revocation (pp. 51-57) The division of police standards is able to begin a preliminary inquiry if there is a report, complaint, or other credible evidence of officer misconduct and must give notice within 30 days. The division is also responsible for keeping a database of such complaints as well as any discipline or decertification that results. So what’s next? The POST Commission can suspend an officer in these cases (with the officer having the right to a hearing within 15 days)

  • Immediately suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a felony
  • Can (post-inquiry) before a charge initiate proceedings if conduct consists a felony if preponderance of the evidence
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a misdemeanor, if the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime affects the fitness of the officer to serve as a law enforcement officer
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer if  the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety or welfare of the public
  • Administratively suspend officers who fail to comply with training and reporting requirements

Revocation of license requires “clear and convincing evidence” — reasons to revoke (p. 52-54 / note “shall” use vs. “may” use for outlined reasons). Note requirements for record-keeping on decertified officers (p. 57) and requirements that decertified officers not be hired even if on contract basis (p. 57). So what’s the difference between “clear and convincing” and “preponderance.” The “preponderance of the evidence” means that something is more likely to be true than not true. “Clear and convincing” sets a higher standard–say, two to four times more likely to be true than not true given the evidence.

Section 30 — Regulations on the Use of force (S1414, p. 58 – 59): The chokehold ban is the clearest of these regulations. Given the conditional clauses in the others, it’s unclear how much of a “ban” they will be in practice.

  • No use of physical force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & such force is necessary to effect lawful arrest, prevent escape from custody, or prevent imminent harm
  • No deadly force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & force is necessary to prevent imminent harm & the force is proportionate to the degree of imminent harm
  • Chokehold ban — Note that Section 30 includes the House’s definition of a chokehold (intent or result of “bodily injury, unconsciousness, or death”) as opposed to the narrower Senate version (definition on page 27).
  • Ban on firing at a fleeing vehicle unless imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. 
  • Requirement of de-escalation for protests. Ban on tear gas, rubber bullets, or attack dogs unless (i) de-escalation tried & failed or not feasible, (ii) imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. Reporting requirements for such uses of force.

Section 30 — Duty to intervene (S15, p. 59): “An officer present and observing another officer using physical force, including deadly force, beyond that which is necessary or objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, shall intervene to prevent the use of unreasonable force unless intervening would result in imminent harm to the officer or another identifiable individual.”

Section 37. Language around Qualified Immunity (pp. 64-65)

  • The bill drops Senate language on reforming qualified immunity and reforming the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, you can sue if an officer violates your rights by means of “threats, intimidation, or coercion.” But here’s the catch: if someone says, “I’ll punch you,” that counts as a threat, intimidation, or coercion. When they punch you, it doesn’t — the threat merely refers to the intent, not the act. So the act of assault falls outside of scope. The Senate language would have reformed this and provided meaningful limitations on qualified immunity so that victims of police brutality can get their fair day in court.
  • Instead, the bill here contains House language saying that qualified immunity only no longer applies when an officer has been decertified or violates someone’s rights by “threats, intimidation, or coercion” (which, as noted above, courts never find to be the case).

Section 78 – – Protecting Students from Profiling (pp. 82-83): This section would protect students from having school officials wrongfully entering them into a gang database and risking their deportation or otherwise criminalization.

  • As in the Senate bill, the language applies to SROs as well as school personnel and contains the Senate’s expanded list of agencies to which information should not be provided.
  • It does, however, drop a few types of information deemed not to be provided in the Senate bill:” (ix) participation in school activities, extracurricular activities outside of school, sports teams or school clubs or organizations; (x) degrees, honors or awards; and (xi) post-high school plans.” Juvenile justice reform advocates are concerned that this information could be used as a proxy for immigration status. And it allows for the transmission of information about gang involvement if deemed “germane” to a “specific unlawful event/activity” that the school is required to report, a possibly large loophole.
  • And it allows for “the sharing of information upon the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student, parent or guardian, to comply with a court order or lawfully issued subpoena, in connection with a health or safety emergency pursuant to the provisions of 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4).” Note that this language could provide opportunities for coerced testimony given the power imbalance that exists.
  • But overall it’s an improvement.

Section 79 — Creation of a model school resource officer memorandum of understanding review commission & other regulations on SROs (pp. 87-90)

  • Note that this includes the language that SROs are hired “at request of” as opposed to “in consultation with” superintendents. Currently, schools are required to have police officers. By changing the language from “in consultation with the superintendent/district” (current law and the House bill) to “at request of” the superintendent or district, it creates space to not make that request. But, unlike in the Senate bill, the power lies with the superintendent and not with a democratic vote of the School Committee.

Section 83 — Ban on racial profiling (p. 91-92): This section adds language to the hands-free driving bill passed last year to ban racial profiling by police and to enable the Attorney General to bring forth civil suits to enforce this. One concern from racial justice advocates was that the law banning texting while driving could lead to an increase in racially motivated traffic stops.

Section 92 — Ban on officers having sex with individuals in custody (pp. 94-97): This section specifies that it is not possible for someone in custody to consent (I mean duh…how was this not law yet?). Note that Section 91 contains House language creating mandatory minimums for “indecent assault on battery” on individuals in custody, with this broken into categories for individuals 14 or over, elders / people with disabilities, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and children under 14.

Section 94 — No-knock warrants (pp. 97-98)

  • Under this section, an officer must submit an affidavit that establishes (a) probable cause that if the law enforcement officer announces their presence their life or the lives of others will be endangered and (b) no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. Note that (b) comes form the House bill.
  • However, officers can evade this requirement if ” to prevent a credible risk of imminent harm” — a potentially wide loophole.
  • Evidence obtained in violation of this would be rightfully inadmissible in court.

Sections 95-98 — Expanded access to juvenile records expungement (pp. 98-100) The final bill expands eligibility to no more than two convictions or adjudications and not more than two non-convictions/non-adjudications (juvenile justice reform advocates had wanted no limitation), but it does allow for multiple charges from one incident to count as one charge. It maintains the existing list of ineligible offenses, but it does apply retroactively (including for petitions that would have previously been ineligible but now wouldn’t be).

Section 103 — Commission on State & County Correctional Officers and Juvenile Detention Officers  (pp. 103-105): The scope of the commission would relate to regulating use of force, access to records, and suspension/revocation. The commission would consist of the following:

    • a former judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court who shall serve as chair
    • the commissioner of correction or a designee
    • 1 correctional officer who shall be appointed by the New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc.;
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, Inc. or a designee
    • the commissioner of the department of youth services or a designee
    • 1 correction officer who shall be appointed by the president of the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union;
    • 1member appointed by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council who shall be an employee of the department of youth services and who shall have not less than 5 years of experience working in a department of youth services secure facility;
    • the executive director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Inc. or a designee
    • the executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services or a  designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee;
    • 2 members who shall be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a member of the LGBTQ community and 1 of whom shall be a formerly-incarcerated woman

Section 104 – Body Cameras  (pp. 105 – 109): This section creates a 25-member task force to promote regulations for uniform use of body cameras, with the regulations due July 31, 2022. Of the task force, 11 out of 25 represent cops, sheriffs, and DAs. 8 of them represent civil rights. Here is the breakdown:

    • the secretary of public safety and security or a designee
    • the secretary of technology services and security or a designee
    • the attorney general or a designee
    • a member appointed by the committee for public counsel services
    • a district court judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority Law Enforcement Officers Association
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority State Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Latino Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement, Inc.
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association or a designee
    • 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Inc.
    • the colonel of state police or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association or a designee
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, Inc., or a designee
    • 5 members appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not fewer than 100,000 people, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not more than 50,000 people, 1 of whom shall be an expert on constitutional or privacy law who is employed by a law school in the commonwealth, 1 of whom shall be an elected official in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and 1 of whom shall be a representative of a law enforcement labor organization.

Section 105 – Commission on use of facial recognition in the Department of Transportation (pp. 109-111)

Section 106 — Commission on emergency hospitalizations (pp. 111-113)

Section 107 — Commission on civil service law reform (pp. 113-116)

Section 108 — Commission on a statewide cadet program (pp. 116-118)

Section 110 — Commission on structural racism in correctional facilities (pp. 118-120)

Section 111 — Commission on structural racism in parole process (pp. 120-121)

Section 112 — Commission on structural racism in probation service (pp. 121-122)

Section 116 — Commission on impact of qualified immunity doctrine (pp. 124-125)

The commission here consists of 15 members:

  • 2 of whom shall be the chairs of the joint committee on the judiciary or their designees, who shall serve as co-chairs;
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house
  • 1 of whom shall be a member of the house of representatives appointed by the minority leader
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate 1 of whom shall be a member of the senate appointed by the minority leader
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed by the gov — 1 of whom shall be a member of a police officers’ union, 1 of whom shall be a member of a firefighters’ union, and 1 of whom shall be a retired justice of the appeals court
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee

Based on what we know of these people, what should we expect? There are 5 members we can expect support reform to qualified immunity: the Senate judiciary chair, the 2 designees of the Senate President, the designee of the ACLU, and the Greater Boston NAACP president (or her designee). I am not sure where the Bar or Mass Municipal stands. One should expect that the other 8 members would all be opposed to meaningful reform, making the commission less than useless. Its report (if it happens) is due next September.

Section 117 — Study requirement for the Community Policing and Behavioral Health Advisory Council on a crisis response and continuity of care system to deliver alternative emergency service (pp. 125-127)

Here’s What You Can Do This Week for Civil Rights & Housing Stability

It’s been quite the 24 hours. And if you’re like us, you’re thinking, “How can I take action, including right here in Massachusetts?”

Here are some ways.

Past Time to Pass the ROE Act

While we mourn the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we must redouble our efforts to strengthen reproductive rights here in Massachusetts.

Contrary to our liberal reputation, we still have retrograde language and laws on the books.

Tell your state legislators to stop delaying and pass the ROE Act.

Housing Is a Human Right

At the end of the July, the MA House and Senate passed economic development bills (H4887). Each bill contains some important steps to address our affordable housing crisis.

Can you call your state legislators in support of the following three housing reforms? You can find their number here if you don’t have it.

  • Tenant Opportunity to Purchase, which guarantees the right of refusal for tenants when a large building is up for sale or foreclosed (from the HOUSE bill)
  • Inclusionary Zoning Reforms, which would lower the threshold for passing such ordinances to a simple majority (from the SENATE bill)
  • Eviction sealing protections to gives tenants with no-fault evictions the legal right to petition the court to seal their record any time after the conclusion of the case and provide tenants with non-payment evictions the ability to petition the court to seal within 14 days of paying off their judgment (from the SENATE bill)

Police Accountability Week of Action w/ the ACLU

In July, the MA Senate and House both passed police reform legislation (not far-reaching enough, but with a number of important steps forward). However, since then, police unions have been bombarding them with ads and misinformation to make sure that a final bill gets watered down or not passed at all.

If we want to have any accountability at all, we can’t let such tactics work. Join the ACLU this week for a series of events to draw attention to police brutality here in Massachusetts and underscore the need for action.

Monday, September 21, 6:00 PM: Virtual rally kick off (RSVP here)

Tuesday, September 22, 5:30 PM: Police accountability phone bank (RSVP here)

Friday, September 25, 11:00 AM: Police accountability phone bank (RSVP here)

Haven’t spoken to your state legislators about this bill recently? Take a moment today to do so.

Phone Banking for the Safe Communities Act

The Safe Communities Act would end the entanglement of police, courts, and county sheriffs in immigration enforcement, and protect basic rights. This entanglement makes immigrants fear sharing personal information with anyone, including medical providers and public health workers.

We need to take a stand and make clear that immigrants are welcome here, and that means passing the Safe Communities Act.

Fortunately, the bill was reported out of committee in July. But we need to make sure that there is enough support for it to be brought to the floor by the end of the year.

Join the Safe Communities Coalition for one of these upcoming phone banks:

Monday, 9/21, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Thursday, 9/24, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Tuesday, 9/29, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Thursday, 10/1, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Let Our Families Drive! March & Rally

Thousands of Black and Brown immigrant families continue to live in fear of ICE detention for being stopped for a traffic violation and many are being deported – even during a pandemic. All families deserve the right to move freely in our state and live in dignity. 

Saturday, September 26th, the Driving Families Forward Coalition will be holding a rally in support of the Work and Family Mobility Act, which would support expanding access to driver’s licenses across the Commonwealth

Join the Driving Families Forward Coalition for the Let Our Families Drive: March & Rally on Saturday, September 26th at 2:00PM! RSVP for the event here.

The March & Rally will be broadcast via Facebook Live. The coalition will meet up outside the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) located at 136 Blackstone St, Boston (by the Haymarket T Station) and march to the JFK Federal Building to uplift the need to abolish ICE and the deportation machine. The march will end at the State House for a short speaking program and rally.

Phone Bank for the Census

The 2020 census will determine representation and resource allocation for the next decade. If people are uncounted, their voices will be unheard, and their communities won’t get the resources they need to thrive.

That’s why we’re joining our allies at the Massachusetts Voter Table to call residents and voters in communities of color, working-class neighborhoods, and more to participate in the 2020 Census and to make a plan to vote safely this fall.

Sign up for a phone bank here.

These Bills Passed in July. Why Are They Still in Conference Committee?

In July, the MA House and MA Senate both passed police reform bills (of varying ambition). And the House passed a climate bill (the Senate had done so back in January).

In each case, there are six-member committees of state senators and state representatives (“conference committees”) working to come up with a final bill.

So where are they?

The short answer: We don’t know.

The long answer: Conference committees are incredibly secretive processes. But the more your legislators hear from you about the need for the strongest bills possible on both fronts, the better the odds are that we will see better final products — or any final bills at all.

Can you contact your state legislators this weekend with four key asks for each bill?

Climate Bill

  1. Environmental justice language to protect vulnerable and historically marginalized communities that have borne the brunt of pollution and other environmental harms
  2. An accelerated timeline for emissions targets because we are already so far behind
  3. Increased renewable electricity generation because we need to be shifting away from fossil fuels and toward clean, green energy for us to even meet those targets
  4. A clear equity focus in any carbon pricing scheme that comes out of the bill so that the communities most impacted by environmental injustices can benefit from a sustainable transition

Police Reform Bill

  1. Strong reforms to qualified immunity as well as the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, as in the Senate bill, to ensure that victims of police brutality can have their fair day in court
  2. Breaking up the school-to-prison pipeline by granting schools discretion over whether or not to have school resource officers and ensuring that student information is not being passed on to police or ICE
  3. Reinvestment in communities because strong, thriving communities are the bedrock of any real vision of public safety
  4. Restrictions on the government use of facial surveillance because such tools are notoriously racist and inaccurate and violate basic privacy rights

Will Any True Reform Have Taken Place?

Dear Conference Committee Members,


I am writing today as the chair of the Issues Committee and Secretary of the Board of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots progressive advocacy

We urge you to the inclusion of the following provisions in a final bill, We would specifically note that without strengthening the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and limiting qualified immunity, most other reforms in the bill will fail to deliver on their promise. If our legal system continues to allow police officers to violate the basic constitutional rights of Massachusetts residents, especially those who are Black or Brown, with impunity, then little if any “reform” will have taken place.

From the SENATE Bill:

(1) Section 10, which enables victims of police abuse to seek redress in the courts

(2) Sections 34-40, which require transparency and public decision-making about local police acquisition of military equipment such as tanks, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles

(3) Section 37, which establishes a Justice Workforce Reinvestment Fund

(4) Section 49, which prohibits schools from transmitting to law enforcement personal information about students or their family members

(5) Section 50, which permits school superintendents to determine whether or not police should be assigned to local schools.

(6) Section 52, which bans racial and other profiling, requires data collection for all stops, frisks, and searches with, analysis, reporting, and accountability if the data demonstrates profiling

(7) Sections 59-61, which clarify that individuals petitioning for expungement may do so for more than one record and creates a limited, rather than indefinite, lookback period for expungement eligibility.

(8) Language in Section 55 – 2(f) that requires police to plan for de-escalation in advance of protests or gatherings

From the HOUSE bill:

(1) Section 2, which clarifies that law enforcement misconduct records are public records

(2) Section 25, which restricts government use of facial surveillance

(3) Section 78, which establishes reasonable safeguards around the use of no-knock warrants

(4) The definition of “choke hold” in Section 29

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Secretary, Board

Progressive Massachusetts

Fight for the Strongest Police Reform Bill

House and Senate Leadership have appointed a conference committee to reconcile their respective bills. The conference committee — Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, Sen. Tarr, Rep. Cronin, Rep. Gonzalez, and Rep. Whelan — will work on a consensus bill, which will have to be voted on and then sent to the Governor.

Please urge your legislators and Governor Charlie Baker to support the strongest bill possible.

From the SENATE Bill:

(1) Section 10, which enables victims of police abuse to seek redress in the courts

(2) Sections 34-40, which require transparency and public decision-making about local police acquisition of military equipment such as tanks, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles

(3) Section 37, which establishes a Justice Workforce Reinvestment Fund

(4) Section 49, which prohibits schools from transmitting to law enforcement personal information about students or their family members

(5) Section 50, which permits school superintendents to determine whether or not police should be assigned to local schools.

(6) Section 52, which bans racial and other profiling, requires data collection for all stops, frisks, and searches with, analysis, reporting, and accountability if the data demonstrates profiling

(7) Sections 59-61, which clarify that individuals petitioning for expungement may do so for more than one record and creates a limited, rather than indefinite, lookback period for expungement eligibility.

(8) Language in Section 55 – 2(f) that requires police to plan for de-escalation in advance of protests or gatherings

From the HOUSE bill:

(1) Section 2, which clarifies that law enforcement misconduct records are public records

(2) Section 25, which restricts government use of facial surveillance

(3) Section 78, which establishes reasonable safeguards around the use of no-knock warrants

(4) The definition of “choke hold” in Section 29

The House Can Strengthen Its Police Reform Bill

Black Lives Matter

Yesterday, the MA House released its police reform bill, and needless to say, we’re disappointed. Although there are some improvements on the Senate bill (stronger language on facial surveillance and chokeholds), the House punted on reforming qualified immunity, weakened language on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline, eliminated the Justice Reinvestment Fund, and dropped a whole section devoted to controlling the transfer of military equipment to police forces.

The House will be voting THIS WEEK, so your state rep needs to be hearing from YOU that you want a stronger bill. We’ve outlined some key amendments below. (Click here to contact your reps.)

Making Sure that Schools Are Safe & Welcoming Spaces

#1 (Sabadosa): Ensuring Public Accountability for School Policing, which provides school districts with discretion about whether or not to hire school resource officers

#88 (Elugardo): Protecting Students From Profiling, which disrupts the school-to-prison pipeline by preventing the transmission of student information to law enforcement agencies

Centering Public Safety around Community

#46 (Keefe): Justice Reinvestment and Workforce Development Fund, which would reallocate an equivalent sum of money from savings from the Department of Corrections into a fund for job training and workforce development for communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal-legal system

#71 (Sabadosa): Alternatives to Policing, which establishes a Community Emergency Response Team consisting of trained social workers under the Department of Public Health to divert certain 911 calls to

#166 (Vargas): Clarifying Expungement, which has the potential to remove major barriers for thousands of young people including access to jobs, housing, education, and other opportunities

#99 (Barber): Work and Family Mobility, which ensures that immigration status is not a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license

Demilitarizing Police & Strengthening Regulations on the Use of Force

#92 (Elugardo) Pre-Emptive De-Escalation, which requires police departments to make plans for de-escalation in advance of protests

#97 (Robinson): No-Knock Warrants, which bans the use of no-knock raids

#131 (Lewis): Restrictions on the Acquisition on Military Grade Controlled Property, which imposes limitations and democratic oversight requirements on the procurement of military weaponry by state and local enforcement

#194 (Robinson): Use of force tactics, which bans the use of rubber bullets and attack dogs by police

#200 (Connolly): Tear Gas, which bans the use of tear gas

Increasing Police Accountability

#77 (Vargas): Preponderance of Evidence as the Burden of Proof for License Suspension and Revocation, which changes the burden of proof used by the Massachusetts Police Standards and Training Commission to suspend/revoke licenses from “clear and convincing evidence” to “a preponderance of the evidence”

#100 (Provost): Addressing Direct Civil Rights Violations, ​which would allow victims of police brutality and other civil rights violations to bring claims in state court for direct violations of their rights — without having to prove that their rights were violated by means of threats, intimidation or coercion.

​#176 (Hecht): Reforming qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, which would enable victims of police brutality to hold officers accountable in court by allowing officers to claim immunity only if it was clearly established that their conduct was lawful.​

#210 (Malia): Officer identification, which requires all officers to have a badge with their name, identification number, and agency visible, with violations subject to suspension or other discipline

Independence of the Police Standards & Accreditation Commission

#95 (Robinson): Makeup of POSAC, which ensures that the civilian members of the commission are not family members of law enforcement

#96 (Robinson): Designation of POSAC Chair, which takes away the Governor’s ability to appoint the commission’s chair and allows the commission to appoint its own

#202 (Decker): Police Standards Commission, which eliminates the guaranteed law enforcement seats on the commission

Preventing a Gross Misallocation of Funds

#86 (Miranda): Prioritizing Social Equity Spending of Marijuana Revenue, which stipulates that if any money is redirected from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund, an equal or greater amount must be transferred to a social equity training and assistance fund

#94 (Robinson): Police Training Fund & #211 (Vega): Marijuana Regulation Fund, which strike the language redirecting funds from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund


Protecting the Human Rights of the Incarcerated

#2 (Sabadosa): Use of Force within the DOC, which would require the Department of Corrections and sheriffs’ offices to provide a commission on the use of force within prisons and jails with necessary documentation to conduct oversight

#98 (Sabadosa): Decarceration, which would require the release of individuals who are currently in pre-trial detainment or under incarceration if they are a member of a population deemed especially vulnerable by the CDC, are eligible for medical parole, are almost finished with their sentence, or are only being detained due to inability to pay bail or due to minor violations of parole

Take Action: The Senate Votes Tomorrow on Policing Reform

Black Lives Matter

Tomorrow, the MA Senate will be voting on a bill to reform how policing is done in Massachusetts.

Although it contains many important provisions, it also leaves far too much on the table, and it contains language that undercuts the ability of the reforms to provide meaningful change.

Here’s how you can help.

Tell your senator to support Amendments #10, 21, 27, 31, 37, 64, 65, 67, 75, 81, 108, 113, and 119. These amendments will reinvest in communities, limit the scope and presence of police, ban dangerous police tactics, and protect the rights of the incarcerated.

Find their number here and give them a call.

Tweet at them to support the amendments.

Send them an email in support of these amendments.

What These Amendments Do

Reinvesting in Communities

#81: Removing The Cap On Justice Reinvestment (Jehlen): The bill reinvests money from the Department of Corrections into a fund for job training and workforce development for communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal-legal system. The fund, based on the savings produced by reduced incarceration rates, could reach as high as $38 million a year, but the bill caps the fund at $10 million. This amendment would remove the cap.

Limiting the Scope & Presence of Police

Amendment #10: Promoting racial justice by decriminalizing homelessness (Rausch), which guarantees the right of those experiencing homelessness to use public spaces in the same manner as any other person without discrimination based on their housing status

Amendment #31: Banning pretextual stops (Chandler), which prohibits a practice too often employed by police to harass Black and Brown drivers

Amendment #108: Protecting Students from Profiling (Jehlen), which disrupts the school-to-prison pipeline by preventing the transmission of student information to a Fusion Center, the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, or any other agency that keeps a gang database

Banning dangerous police tactics

Amendment #64: Relative to Facial recognition (Creem): The Senate bill bans the use of facial surveillance for law enforcement for only one year. This amendment extends that ban until legislation is passed to implement such a ban permanently.

Amendment #65: Banning tear gas and other chemical weapons (Rausch): The Senate bill bill allows tear gas to be used in certain circumstances, offering no real deterrent to its use. Police should never use tear gas or chemical weapons against civilians. This amendment would prohibit the use of tear gas and chemical weapons altogether.

Amendment #67: Banning choke holds (Eldridge): Under the extremely narrow definition in the bill, the restraint used against George Floyd could be found lawful until the moment he was rendered unconscious and killed. This amendment clarifies that all neck restraints are prohibited.

Amendment #75: Clarifying the Reasonableness of an Officer’s Actions (Eldridge), which creates a higher standard for the use of force

Amendment #119: Banning no-knock warrants (Hinds): The Senate bill allows no-knock warrants in certain circumstances. Breonna Taylor was murdered after police broke down her front door without warning in the middle of the night under the auspices of a no-knock warrant, and no-knock warrants are disproportionately used to terrorize Black and Brown communities. This amendment would ban them altogether.

Protecting the Rights of the Incarcerated

Amendment #21: Strengthening visitation of incarcerated persons (Rausch), which removes harmful limitations on visitation imposed by the Department of Corrections

Amendment #27: Correctional Officers (Eldridge), which prevents decertified officers from working in prisons and jails

Amendment #37: Transitional Assistance for Wrongfully Convicted Persons (Jehlen), which guarantees $5,000 in transitional financial assistance as well as access to physical and mental health services upon release for those who have been wrongfully convicted

Amendment #113: Prison Use of Force Records (Eldridge), which ensures that an inmate and the inmate’s legally designated representative shall have the right to obtain a copy of all records relating to any use of force incident involving the inmate

Four Weeks Left….

Unless anything changes, four weeks from today — Friday, July 31st — the formal part of the 191st Legislative Session of the Massachusetts General Court will come to an end.

That means that there are four weeks for the MA Legislature to up its game on pretty much every single front.

Four weeks for them to take action in support of immigrants’ rights, such as passing the Safe Communities Act and the Work & Family Mobility Act.

Four weeks for them to take action in support of reproductive justice by passing the ROE Act.

Four weeks for them to tackle the systemic racism in policing and the criminal legal system.

Four weeks for them to tackle our affordable housing crisis (and just over a month for them to take action before the eviction moratorium passed earlier this year expires).

Four weeks for them to take action to address climate change because Mother Nature doesn’t care about self-imposed deadlines.

Four weeks for them to pass Emergency Paid Sick Time so that workers don’t have to choose between their health and their job security in a global pandemic.

Four weeks for them to pass a budget that lives up to our values by raising progressive revenue to avoid deep, harmful cuts in public services.

None of this will happen unless your legislators hear from you — loud and clear — that they can’t keep procrastinating. That they can’t keep punting issues to later and later in the session until each session runs out. And then the cycle of excuse-making and delay continues.

Can you call your legislators to demand action in these final four weeks?

Find their contact information here, and then save it for next time.