MA Police Reform is far from over

The police reform bill (s2982) that is being moved through Massachusetts legislature has sweeping reforms to it. In response to a tumultuous summer of anger, fear, and unfortunately bloodshed, it is evident that an ongoing conversation on a community level about policing is necessary. This bill, I am certain, will not be the last of its nature in Massachusetts - complex issues cannot be resolved overnight. While police reform will take us into the future, this bill has a number of shortcomings that must be addressed.

This bill’s failure to ban teargas in its entirety raises concerns on a number of fronts. First, teargas’ efficacy in crowd dispersion is questionable. Teargas causes confusion and disorientation among crowds, as well as runs the risk of being seen as an act of aggression by police. Teargas has a potential to escalate volatile situations between police and crowds.

In addition to its inefficacy, teargas also poses serious health risks for those in close proximity to deployed teargas cannisters. People have lost their vision, developed respiratory illnesses, and even died from exposure to teargas. Its use is banned in war under the Geneva Convention due to long term health risks for targets.

I recommend that this bill ban teargas in its entirety. It is ineffective in its application as a crowd dispersal tool and poses a health risk for anyone in its proximity.

Qualified Immunity is not addressed meaningfully in this bill. While many police unions and organizations support QI for police, the people of the commonwealth do not. QI is intended to protect officers from frivolous lawsuits. In practice, however, it is viewed by civilians as a way for corrupt officers to shirk responsibility for illegal conduct while on duty. The commonwealth has a vested interest in showing its citizens that the institution of police is not corrupt in Massachusetts.

There is no valid reason for Qualified Immunity to be in place. Officers must be held responsible for knowing and understanding the laws they enforce. With QI removed, everyone is safer; civilians are protected from illegal conduct by on-duty officers, and officers’ knowledge of the law protects them from a lawsuit pertaining to their conduct.

I recommend that Qualified Immunity be removed under this bill, and increased officer education in state and town law if necessary. These measures would protect both civilians and officers.

Under this bill, officers are mandated to intervene and report observed misconduct by fellow officers. While this is a necessary aspect of the bill, it can be improved upon. Nowhere in this bill are specific protections for officers who report misconduct. Officers are often coerced into silence out of fear of retaliation from their department and their fellow officers. Retaliation can appear in the form of targeted harassment, isolation of the reporting officer, intra-department conflict (picking sides), or even outright firing of the reporting officer. If reporting officers are not sufficiently protected from retaliation, the reporting misconduct will continue to be de-incentivized.

The POST Commission implemented under this bill could be used as an avenue for reporting officers. Instead of using the department as a middleman and allowing for misconduct to potentially be covered up, going to the POST Commission allows for an outside agency to involved early on. The commission’s early involvement can ensure that the officer is protected from retaliation within their own department.

I recommend that the mandate for officers to intervene and report misconduct be changed to include the POST Commission. In a move that ensures accountability and prevents any incidents from being handled in house, this simple adjustment goes a long way for transparency in the system.