HARTFORD, Conn. _ The state police union argued in federal court Tuesday against sections of a new police accountability law that could result in public disclosure of information in trooper personnel files that is now sealed by the union's contract.
The troopers claim parts of comprehensive police legislation enacted in July singles them out unfairly and unconstitutionally voids privacy protections negotiated in their three-year contract adopted last year. They base the challenge on federal vonstitutional language limiting the ability of states to interfere with valid contracts.
The legislature ratified the state police union contract in the spring of 2019 and then voided sections a year later with passage of the reform law. By nullifying some contract language, the new law makes trooper personnel files subject to disclosure under state public records laws.
Specifically, the union is opposed to a contract change that would make public complaints against troopers that were determined to have been unfounded. They also are challenging the loss of contract language that would give them notice of requests for disclosure of personnel records so they can make privacy right arguments against release.
The union is asking for a court order that would immediately stop the department from enforcing sections of the new law that conflict with the contract. U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. did not rule immediately.
Proloy K. Das, attorney for the union, which sued public safety Commissioner James Rovella in August, argued that the reform law "seeks to obliterate" the troopers' contract. Das also said the legislature's own research bureau published an analysis questioning the constitutionality of those parts of the reform law in conflict with the contract.
Assistant state Attorney General Michael Skold, representing Rovella, argued that the legislature's modification of the contract was permissible _ and foreseeable _ because it was done to further the public's interest in making police officers more accountable.
"I guess what puzzles me is how can you reasonably foresee the actions of a legislature which is as unpredictable as to approve a collective bargaining agreement that says one thing and then, not that long afterward, pass a statute that wipes it out?" Haight asked. "Is that the sort of conduct on the part of the legislature that the union should predictably foresee?"
Skold replied, "The question is not whether the change was foreseeable but that you are operating in an area that is subject to regulation. ... When you are in an area where the government regulates, the government can continue to regulate."
Edmund H. Mahony can be reached at emahony@courant.com.
.png?w=600)
