14

Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2020 lez (D-Springfield). “And sometimes that’s where life takes you. So these are moments that are historical and unique, challenging, but these are profi le of courage moments. Both chambers want to get something across to the governor and get something that can be approved by the governor, but also veto-proof in both THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senator’s votes on roll calls from the week of July 20-24. 2800) CHANGES IN POLICING (S House 93-66, approved a bill making changes in the state’s policing system. The measure creates a Police Officer Standards and Accreditation Committee (POSAC)—an independent state entity composed of law enforcement professionals, community members and racial justice advocates—to standardize the certifi cation, training and decertifi - cation of police offi cers for misconduct including bias, conviction of a felony, submission of false timesheets and use of excessive force. The bill revokes qualifi ed immunity in any case that results in decertifi cation of the offi cers and creates a commission to study qualified immunity and report fi ndings by March 31, 2021. Qualifi ed immunity is a judicially created legal doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under current qualifi ed immunity, police offi cers and other government offi cials can only be held accountable in civil suits for violating someone’s rights if a court has previously ruled that it was “clearly established” those precise actions were unconstitutional. Other provisions include creation of a Commission on the Status of African Americans, ban the use of facial technology and chokeholds, regulate the use of tear gas and rubber bullets unless offi cers have no other options to protect public safety, restrict “noknock” warrants and bar school offi cials from sharing student information with outside law enforcement agencies. “Change is never easy, but with this vote, the House of Representatives acts to ensure fairness and equality,” said House Speaker Bob DeLeo (D-Winthrop). “It is the product of countless hours of conversations with a wide swath of stakeholders, including the members of the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus.” «Everybody had to give up something here to get to a common good, right,” said chair of the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus Rep. Carlos Gonzachambers.» “The legislation in the House and the Senate are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to the events happening hundreds of miles away from here,” said Mass. Police Chief Association President Jeff Farnsworth. “These bills are not a response to any current situation in Massachusetts. These bills are being used to make a political statement. They do not address issues in Massachusetts. As law enforcement leaders our primary mission is to ensure the safety of our residents and our communities. We do not believe that this legislation will do that. It has the very real possibility of doing just the opposite.” Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts opposed the bill but for vast different reasons than Farnsworth. “For months, people across the country and the state have been marching in the streets to demand systemic change,” said Rose. “Unfortunately, this bill does not reflect the fierce urgency that deadly police violence against Black people demands. Instead, it refl ects the depth of entrenched opposition to necessary police reform. Police unions and officers used the weapon of fear to maintain the status quo and undermine even very moderate reforms.” Space for Lease 3 Large Rooms, each with Large Walk-in Storage Area. or Aerobics Studio. Located at Route 1 South at Walnut Street. Rollerworld Plaza, Route 1 South, 425 Broadway, Saugus. Call Michelle at: 781-233-9507 The Senate has approved a different version of the bill and a House-Senate conference committee will likely try to hammer out a compromise version. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Yes Rep. RoseLee Vincent Yes DEFINE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (H 4860) House 44-115, rejected an amendment to a section of the bill which provides for the decertification of a police officer for, among other off enses, “unprofessional police conduct.” The amendment would define “unprofessional police conduct” as “on-duty behavior by a law enforcement offi cer which is established by probable cause to be a violation of state and/or federal law, excessive use of physical force or repeated, sustained instances of behaviors which violate departmental policies or bring the law enforcement agency into disrepute.” “This term is not defi ned anywhere in the bill and [my amendment] sought to specifi cally defi ne what it is, rather than allowing another body to later have to divine our legislative intent,” said the amendment’s sponsor Rep. Tim Whelan (R-Brewster), a former Massachusetts state trooper. Opponents said the amendment would limit the scope and authority of the independent commission the bill sets up. They argued the commission should be allowed to do its work without its hand tied by the Legislature. (A “Yes” vote is for defi ning “unprofessional police conduct.” A “No” vote is against defi ning it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo No Rep. RoseLee Vincent Yes NO-KNOCK WARRANT (H 4860) House 83-76, approved an amendment to a section of the bill which sets the rules under which a judge can issue a “no-knock warrant” that does not require a law enforcement offi cer to knock and announce his or her presence and purpose before forcibly entering a residence. The measure requires the request for the warrant to establish probable cause that if the law enforcement offi cer announces their presence, then their life or the lives of others will be endangered. The amendment would require that the police offi cer fi ling the affi davit swear that he or she has no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. Amendment supporters said the amendment would wisely limit the use of no-knock warrants. They cited cases in which young children and senior citizens were accidentally shot by police executing a no-knock warrant. “The bill already limits the scope surrounding issuance of no-knock warrants to matters where weapons are present, and for life-safety concerns,” said Rep. Whelan. “The amendment further restricts the issuance of no-knock warrants, even when weapons and firearms are believed to be present and compromises the safety of the police offi cers serving these warrants in highly dangerous situations.” (A “Yes” vote is for requiring that the fi ling offi cer swear that he or she has no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. A “No” vote is against requiring it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Yes Rep. RoseLee Vincent No TEAR GAS (H 4860) House 38-121, rejected an amendment that would ban the use of tear gas by law enforcement offi cers in Massachusetts. “When thousands of people gather to protest the state-sponsored murder of black people, the response shouldn’t be to fi re chemical weapons at them,” said the amendment’s sponsor Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “But, too often, we have seen the indiscriminate use of tear gas on our streets, even though tear gas is actually prohibited in international warfare by the Geneva Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Convention. To be sure, the underlying bill we are considering today will add some limitations on the use of tear gas, but this amendment would have made the bill even stronger.” “This amendment would have prohibited law enforcement’s use of tear gas in all situations,” said Rep. Michael Day (D-Stoneham), vice chair of the Judiciary Committee. “The underlying bill imposes heightened restrictions and regulates the use of tear gas by requiring law enforcement to exhaust crowd de-escalation measures [fi rst]. This bill also establishes substantial oversight over the use of tear gas by requiring law enforcement agencies who do use it to provide a written report detailing all measures taken in advance of the event to reduce the probability of danger and all deescalation measures taken. The independent commission will then review that report and determine whether further investigation or corrective action should be taken.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that bans the use of tear gas. A “No” vote is for allowing the use of tear gas.) Rep. Bob DeLeo No Rep. RoseLee Vincent No POLICE DOGS (H 4860) House 43-115, rejected an amendment that would strike a section of the bill that allows an attack on a person by a police dog to be the basis of an inquiry into an offi cer that can lead to his or her decertifi cation. Amendment supporters said

15 Publizr Home