a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In what may prove to be a landmark decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court last week reversed decades of precedent in interpreting the State’s kidnapping statute. The Court issued two companion cases: State v. Salamon (concurrence and dissent) and State v. Sanseverino (dissent).

Background: Under the prior interpretation of the kidnapping statute, you would be guilty of kidnapping in the second degree (C.G.S. 53a-94) if you merely restrained an individual while committing a crime. This interpretation came from a line of cases starting twenty or so years ago, most recently reaffirmed in State v. Luurtsema.

This interpretation brought about absurd results. A defendant, who pinned down an individual for the purpose of committing sexual assault, was also then guilty of kidnapping. If I pushed you down and then punched you (clearly an assault), I would also be guilty of kidnapping.

Prosecutors used this to their advantage and routinely charged kidnapping in the second degree with other crimes, because they had to prove very little. (In fact, there were some judges who would routinely acquit defendants of kidnapping if charged as a throw-in with the underlying crime.) Under the Luurtsema interpretation, any restraint, however minimal, was sufficient to convict someone of kidnapping in the second degree - a B felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years.

The correct offense to charge, however, was unlawful restraint in the second degree - a B misdemeanor. But under Luurtsema, there was virtually no difference between kidnapping and unlawful restraint.

6 years after Luurtsema, the Court gets it right. I’m not sure they picked the case with the best facts in which to do so, but here we are. The Court engages in a very lengthy analysis of our kidnapping statutes, starting with common law.

The Court does this by focusing on the distinction between the words “abduct” (appearing in the kidnapping statute) and “restraint” (appearing in the unlawful restraint statute). The Court determines that abduct incorporates and builds upon restraint.

In what is becoming a rarity, the Court also acknowledges the practical impact of its prior interpretation:

Our failure previously to recognize such an exclusion largely has eliminated the distinction between restraints and abductions and effectively has merged the statutory scheme such that it now closely resembles the provision that the scheme was intended to replace. Unfortunately, that interpretation has afforded prosecutors virtually unbridled discretion to charge the same conduct either as a kidnapping or as  an unlawful restraint despite the significant differences in the penalties that attach to those offenses. Similarly, our prior construction of the kidnapping statutes has permitted prosecutors— indeed, it has encouraged them—to include a kidnapping charge in any case involving a sexual assault or robbery. In view of the trend favoring reform of the law of kidnapping that existed at the time that our statutes were enacted, and in light of the commission’s stated goal of creating a modern, informed and enlightened penal code, it is highly likely that our legislature intended to embrace that reform, thereby reducing the potential for  unfairness that had been created under this state’s prior kidnapping statutes.

The Court then looks to sister states and cites a number of them interpreting their kidnapping statutes in a manner contrary to Luurtsema.

The test: So what does all of this mean? Well, now, it is no longer kidnapping to restrain an individual where the restraint is merely incidental to the commission of the underlying felony. I believe this to be the operative test going forward:

‘‘[T]he guiding principle is whether the [confinement or movement] was so much the part of another  substantive crime that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts . . . .’’ State  v. Niemeyer, 258 Conn. 510, 528, 782 A.2d 658 (2001) (McDonald, C. J., concurring). In other words, ‘‘the  test . . . to determine whether [the] confinements or movements involved [were] such that kidnapping may also be charged and prosecuted when an offense separate from kidnapping has occurred asks whether the   confinement, movement, or detention was merely incidental to the accompanying felony or whether it was significant enough, in and of itself, to warrant independent prosecution.

The Court gives no guidance, however, on what would constitute “significant enough”. Perhaps that remains for another day.

The Court doesn’t go back on all of its kidnapping jurisprudence, though. There still is no minmum restraint requirement to constitute a kidnapping. However, the Court does tell us that when there is restraint incidental to the crime, for kidnapping “the confinement or movement must have exceeded that which was necessary to commit the other crime.”

The Court also states that is not double jeopardy for someone to be convicted of both kidnapping and unlawful restraint (nor could they - having established that they are separate requirements for each).

The bottom line: There are a few things to take from this decision. One, that if the restraint is merely incidental to the other felony being committed, then it is not kidnapping. Second, you can be convicted of both kidnapping and unlawful restraint in the same act.

Unanswered questions: There are some unanswered questions, unfortunately. The first is whether some slight restraint is sufficient to convict someone of kidnapping, if there is no other underlying crime. For example, if I stand in your way as you try to leave a room, for even a few seconds, is that kidnapping? (The chatter on the local listserve tells me that there is such a case currently pending before the Supreme Court. We may have an answer to this soon.)

Finally, Mike asks in the comments to my previous post: What of Mr. Luurtsema himself? It is his case that was overruled here. Does he (and others like him) get any benefit now?

I think the answer is: Maybe, but probably not. (Can I be any more vague?) Both the majority and dissent in Sanseverino recognize that Salamon can be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its issuance. Justice Zarella’s dissent, in footnote 1, seems to argue for a further application to cases not still pending, but it’s not clear. Or maybe that’s just me reading too much into it. (See my comment here for the text of that footnote.)

This case was not decided on Constitutional grounds, so the Teague rule probably wouldn’t apply. But in my brief search, I came upon no case where there was a retroactive application of a judicial interpretation of a statute that benefited defendants, on collateral review. If anyone knows of such a case, or has any insights on what Mr. Luurtsema might do, feel free to share them in the comments. I suspect that it will have to be litigated in habeas corpus proceedings.

Lots and lots of interesting decisions this week, both from SCOTUS and the CT Supreme Court. For Kennedy coverage, the best place to go is Sex Crimes. Giles is the potentially more interesting decision for the criminal defense practitioner. I should have something up on Giles later today.

Then, of course, there’s the gun ban case, which will be announced today. SCOTUSblog will have up to the minute coverage.

Of even more interest to the CT practitioner should be yesterday’s decisions by the CT Supreme Court in Salamon (majority, concurrence, concurrence and dissent) and Sanseverino (majority and dissent).

Not only do these decisions make me look foolish, but they also overrule very recent precedent. In doing so, CT now comes in line with a majority of states (and common sense) by differentiating between kidnapping and unlawful restraint.

Until yesterday, any slight restraint on a victim during the commission of another felony could be charged as kidnapping - a B felony carrying a 20 year penalty. Now, the court has backtracked and said that in order to prove kidnapping there must be something more than just the restraint required to carry out the underlying felony.

Where this will affect practice is that prosecutors will no longer be able to charge every defendant with kidnapping, no matter how slight the restraint. Those defendants will have to be charged with unlawful restraint - a B misdemeanor.

The decisions are dense and very interesting, so I will have full posts on them as soon as I’ve had a chance to digest them.

A variant on “I’ll know it when I see it”. When the story broke yesterday that pornographic images and videos were discovered on the personal website of the Ninth Circuit’s Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, I was naturally curious to see these pictures and read about how they were discovered.

Turns out, the man who leaked these pictures has come forward and provided some of them to Patterico who, taking the man at his word, has posted some pictures purported to be downloaded from that site (the site is, wisely, no longer available).

Folks, let’s be honest. We’ve all seen porn. This is not porn. These are exactly what Judge Kozinski described them to be: funny pictures.

At least in fair Norwich, CT, as this story leads me to believe. I can only imagine how this scene unfolded. Cops arrive at the scene of a fire. A building is destroyed, 14 people (including 7 children) are now homeless.

They arrest and charge the offender….who happens to be eight years old. That’s right. They arrested an 8-year old for recklessly starting a fire.

Not only that, they charged her with a felony. Now, this kid is either the devil incarnate or the whole damn thing was an accident.

The charge is Arson in the third degree, which states:

(a) A person is guilty of arson in the third degree when he recklessly causes destruction or damage to a building, as defined in section 53a-100, of his own or of another by intentionally starting a fire or causing an explosion.

Did the child’s acts fit the statute? Perhaps. Is it a crime? I really, really, really doubt it. However, since “accident” seems to have disappeared from the dictionary, this poor girl has been arrested at the age of eight, charged with a felony and will probably have some trauma from this.

Do we always have to assign blame for loss or damage? Have we become so focused on criminalization that we cannot see we are compounding these people’s misery? What is the point of this arrest? You’re going to send an eight-year old to jail? You’re going to ask her to complete probation or community service?

Reckless or not, I doubt she knows what the hell she’s doing or did.

It’s not like the Norwich police don’t have anything to do. Note that this is a Class C felony, which carries a maximum term of 10 years.

This led me to wonder: What sort of movie would The Problem Child be today? Then I realized it wouldn’t be a movie. It would be a Law and Order episode.

(Side note: Who is Law and who is Order in L A& O?)

Yesterday, California’s Supreme Court issued an historic 4-3 ruling [pdf] overturning that State’s statutory ban on gay marriages. Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a terrific analysis of the ruling here. It is critical to note that this argument was made pursuant to the California Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

As noted in a footnote in that decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court is considering an identical issue in Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Public Health. That case was argued before the Justices one year and two days ago. Re-reading my posts on the oral argument, it seems to me that the most likely outcome is that the Court will punt the case back to the legislature. The days of the CT Supreme Court being on the forefront of progressive jurisprudence seem to be long gone.

While the year and two day delay seems lengthy (compare that to CA, where they issued their opinion in two months), it is not the longest delay I’ve seen from the Court. Further, with May being the last term of the Court, it is very likely that if we do not get a decision from them by the end of July, we won’t see one till September or October.

Anyway, this decision by the CA Court is truly a landmark decision, making California only one of two States in the country to recognize same-sex marriages (MA being the other). It is a good day for equality when a Court sees the “civil union” argument as nothing but more of the “separate but equal” travesty.

Kevin Cales was sentenced to life a few months ago for the deaths of 5 people, whose car he ran off the road in a high-speed pursuit. The car he was chasing was driven by his ex-girlfriend, whom he was stalking.

Cales was attacked from behind while he was seated at a table eating lunch.

Correction sources said the inmate who killed Cales is an 18-year-old man who is serving a seven-year sentence for robbery and, until Tuesday morning, was being housed in the same unit as Cales. The sources said they believed the attacker was related to one of the victims in the crash.

The assailant punched Cales, who was seated, knocking him to the ground, and stomped on his head and neck, sources said. The attack took seconds, before correction officers were able to reach him, sources said.

Some may say, well, he got what was coming to him. I just think it’s sad. What’s also curious is that the DOC is usually good about identifying potential problems with other inmates housed in the same unit. They won’t house co-defendants together, nor will they house inmates who are related to victims in the same unit (heck, even the same facility) as the offenders.

But then again, this is prison. If you want to get to someone, you almost always can.

For the fifth year in a row, the State legislature did not pass an open container law. Per CT News Junkie, the Black and Hispanic caucuses argued that the bill would just end up discriminating against minorities and give cops another excuse.

So, come to CT, where you can drink and drive (just not drunk and driving).

Alternative title: “Our standards are so low”.

Remember David Pollitt? [Previous posts here, here, here and here] Yeah, he’s the guy whose release from prison after maxing out from his sentence had his rich neighbors in an uproar. They didn’t want him living in their cul-de-sac, so they staged protests and feverishly dialed into “Idol Governor”, simultaneously pressing 0 for the operator (I guess 1 for complete abrogation of the rule of law and 2 for abandonment of common sense weren’t enough. They went straight for the operator Governor).

So the Governor, as any good Governor would do, stepped in and asked the chief prosecutor attorney general to intervene to see “if we could have this here guy locked up longer than his sentence”, because well, “I’m the Guv’nor dammit and I should be able to”^.

Thankfully, the only person who could actually make Mr. Pollitt go back to jail remembered that there’s something called the law, which is written in these things called books, to which we do something called follow.

Judge Susan Handy was rather skeptical of the legal basis for this “request” from the Governor and reached back into obscure legalese to pull out a rarely heard term called “Illegal”. Never heard of it.

Anyway, whatever this “illegal” action was, it was coupled with some other bizarre phrase known as “standing”. I guess if you aren’t standing, you can’t do something illegal. My head is spinning.

[insert deafening silence, followed by sound of crickets chirping]

So. The point of this nonsense post is that this past Thursday was the 50th Anniversary of Law Day. Judge Handy received an award from the New London County Bar Association. In keeping with the tradition that lawyers are the most uncreative people on Earth, who have an affinity for campy, cheesy names, the award was called the Liberty Bell Award. Because, I guess, someone rang Liberty’s bell.

“I am both humbled and, I have to say, completely overwhelmed, to receive an award for simply doing the job you entrusted me to do,” said Handy, who was appointed to the bench 15 years ago and serves as presiding judge for criminal matters in the New London judicial district.

Let’s be clear: this post is not about Judge Handy at all. She obviously did the right thing. What disturbs me is that doing the right thing now leads to awards and needs to be recognized. How skewed has our notion of justice become that a judge who follows the law and does the most obvious thing has be to feted.

“Let’s imagine if Judge Handy had not ruled as she did,” [Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara] Quinn said. “A man who had completed his prison sentence would have been unjustly held. The neighbors and some politicians would have rejoiced, along with many members of the public. I would submit to you, however, that the damage to the constitutional rights of every member of the public would have been shaken to the core.”

Why must we imagine? It should be unthinkable that she would rule any other way. This should have passed silently in the night - yet now we have to beat it over people’s heads that she did the right thing.

Congratulations, Judge Handy and I hope this keeps giving you the courage to do the right thing. What worries is me is now I don’t know how many judges would have done the opposite.

^Obviously she did not say that. I don’t know what she said. That was an attempt at humor.

The Kwame Wells-Jordan trial in New Haven has had it all: false confessions, recanting co-defendants, a near-fight between the state’s star witness and the prosecutor, a cop who has since retired amidst scandal and expert testimony on false confessions.

In the end, it looks like the system worked. A jury returned not guilty verdicts yesterday on all counts. Wells-Jordan was charged with being an accessory to assault, robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery. The victim, Herbert Fields, was shot dead during this robbery by another man, who plead guilty to murder.

The recantation and coercion:

But when Johnson [the co-d] testified during the Wells-Jordan trial, he recanted his police statement. Michael Holmes, who police believed was the third person involved in the robbery but was not charged, also contradicted his taped statement.

Wells-Jordan did not testify on his own behalf, but his aunt and legal guardian, Julia Sykes, testified she and her nephew underwent lengthy, high-pressure interrogations in September 2006 and two months later, the day he was arrested.

Skyes, Johnson and Holmes said [now retired, but still embroiled in scandal police officer] Willoughby told the three teenagers a lie in an effort to get them to confess: that their handprints were on Fields’ car. That handprint really belonged to [someone else].

There were two interviews between Wells-Jordan, his aunt and the police, the latter resulting in the false confession. The circumstances surrounding the confessions involved the usual “we know what’s best for you, so if you tell us you did it, you won’t be a defendant” spiel.

The expert:

Cops really don’t like change, do they? One of the more noteworthy bills the legislature passed this past session was the one re-classifying 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles, as opposed to “youthful offenders”.

Why does this bother the cops? Because it means they won’t be able to talk to these teens without a parent or guardian present.

[West Hartford Police chief] Strillaci said that the law would cause juvenile courts to see a 60 percent increase in cases, and that police wouldn’t be about to question the teens without a parent or guardian, and that they wouldn’t be able to detain a 16-or 17-year-old.

He said it would prove costly for local police departments that would have to build special cells for the teens and hire more staff.

Note the contradiction there? “They wouldn’t be able to detain the teen”, but “they would have to build special cells and hire more staff”.

You can’t see it, but I’m rolling my eyes right now. Oh boy. Now they can’t get confessions from confused, immature teens. Tragedy.

Well, well. Now that the budget has tanked and we might not even have a surplus, the Governor announced that she is considering vetoing the recently passed criminal justice bill.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said today that the state’s worsening financial condition may lead her to veto high-profile criminal-justice legislation passed in reaction to last year’s Cheshire home invasion.

Legislation on her desk would stiffen penalties for certain crimes and provide resources for new prosecutors and police and probation officers.

Rell said the tougher penalties could be salvaged by her vetoing only the monetary portions of the legislation.

It is remarkable when you remember that just a few years ago, the State had a surplus in the $700 million range (am I remembering that right?).

Can you imagine if they’d approved new prisons? Geez…

I can’t say that I’m surprised, to be honest. As prison populations rise, cost rises and the bloated budget of Corrections is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of the harsh tact taken toward drug offenses.

Take a look at that DOC budget - somewhere around $650 million last year. Then tell me there’s no harsh sentencing in CT. The truth is that CT hands out some of the harshest sentences in the country.

On top of that, there’s really no parole right now. Prisons are overflowing. Cost is up.

Her idea of a line-item veto may not be feasible. It very well might not be possible to keep the increased penalties without providing the funding for prosecutors and public defenders to man the system.

On the other hand, maybe there are enough votes in the legislature to override any such veto.

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, a Democrat, strongly rejected Rell’s veto threat.

“I think it’s outrageous to suggest at this late date that we would not go forward with critical investments in our criminal justice system that pretty much everyone has agreed to,” Williams said. “I think it’s irresponsible at this point to say we’re going to ignore all that, and not find the resources to make this investment. … We will find the money for this critical investment in public safety.”

We’ll see. For now, I must confess that I chuckled a bit when I read the headline.

More at CTLP and CT NewsJunkie

You must’ve heard the phrase “Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it”. Some police departments have now tried it and may be sorry they knocked it. The Day has this article on the pilot program to videotape interrogations and the surprising (to some) results.

“The police are waking up to the fact that this is not the enemy, that it can be their best friend,” [Judge Kevin P.] McMahon said.

The police have long resisted being compelled to videotape interviews but apparently are seeing good results when they participate voluntarily.

“There has been, for quite a while, a positive reaction to it, but a recognition that we have to be careful and do it right,” said Kevin T. Kane, chief state’s attorney. Kane said there are many issues yet to be resolved, such as creating transcripts of the interviews, preserving the records and training investigators. He said one consideration will be whether the camera inhibits suspects from talking or investigators from using normal or lawful investigative techniques, two reasons police had resisted videotape in the past.

So how are some departments feeling about this?

The time for videotaping has come, said detective Lt. John Varone of the Groton Town Police Department. His department will be included in the second wave of the pilot program and will share its resources with departments east of the Thames River. In the home invasion/murder case, which Varone declined to discuss specifically, police used a camcorder. Eventually, the department’s interview room will be revamped to accommodate state-of-the-art video equipment.

“I think some of the defense attorneys are in for a huge, huge letdown when we do this,” Varone said. “Now they’re not going to be able to challenge us and say we tricked them (the suspect).”

Ugh. This is not a game of Gotcha!, Lt. Varone. I don’t wake up every morning hoping that some cop tricked my client somewhere so I can challenge the confession. We want transparency. The point of videotaping interrogations is precisely to see what cops are doing and to make sure that they don’t get a false confession because they’ve got your sights set on one man and can’t look beyond their nose.

Defense attorneys have long called for mandatory recording of interrogations.

“I think it adds transparency to the process that benefits everybody, both the defense and the state,” said New London attorney Matthew G. Berger. “It removes doubt about what happened.”

Public Defender extraordinaire Tom Ullmann wants to videotape interviews with witnesses.

“Juries are not stupid,” he said. “They don’t understand why this stuff can’t be taped. And from a police perspective, if you did the job correctly and you’ve got someone making a statement and have the whole interview process recorded, it’s going to be reliable.”

Ullman said juries will now be able to see “what police really did.” The courts have allowed police to use trickery and false statements during interrogations, he said, “but I think there is much more problematic stuff that goes on that would stop, such as (the police) suggesting what photo to pick out of a lineup.” In New Haven, Ullman said, the public defenders had a case where the detective whispered “numero dos” to help the eyewitness pick the correct photo.

I don’t know how The Day got this next bit of information, but it sure is juicy:

Defense attorneys regularly ask judges to suppress statements that are not recorded. On Wednesday, attorneys Richard Emanuel and Douglas Nash filed a brief with the state Supreme Court to overturn the conviction of Julian Lockhart, who was convicted in the beating death of Robert Glidden in Durham in 2002. The attorneys claim in the appeal that “the electronic recording of interrogations, advisements of rights and statements is constitutionally required when the interrogation occurs at a place of detention and recording is otherwise feasible.”

I bet that’s a State Constitution claim.

The question mark is because I can’t tell from this piece what the heck actually happened. Shoddy, shoddy writing.

Under pressure to respond after two deadly home invasions in the past nine months, the state Senate voted early this morning to strengthen the state’s criminal law and allocate $10 million for enhanced crime-fighting.

The bill passed by 32 to 3 at about 2:20 a.m. Thursday after the Senate Democrats withdrew a previous amendment that had prompted a sharply bitter debate with Republicans. The final version gained bipartisan support after lawmakers said the bill would authorize a judge to double the penalty following a second violent crime and triple the penalty after a third offense - up to a maximum of life in prison for a violent felon.

The debate on the three-strikes bill had the usual rhetoric from the Republicans that criminals are not being punished. The Dems responded with “bumper sticker politics”.

So what happened, exactly?

Earlier in the evening, the Republicans had verbally pummeled the original bill on the Senate floor, saying that it would actually weaken the state’s laws for violent crimes. Following that clash, Democrats — who hold the majority in the chamber — suddenly postponed the debate and called for a recess shortly before 11:30 p.m. The chamber reconvened later, and the “three strikes” debate pushed the vote past 2 a.m. Thursday.

“This is an extraordinary change in our public policy,” McDonald said, adding that criminals “will be punished in extraordinary ways.”

But Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, said the original bill was so badly written that it would not accomplish the legislature’s tough-on-crime goals and, in fact, would backfire.

“I guess I’m missing something,” Kissel said. “It actually is weaker addressing persistent dangerous felony offenders. … This amendment pushes us backward. How can this be tougher on criminals? It’s not.”

Out of 21 violent crimes mentioned in the original bill, the maximum prison sentence would actually be reduced for eight of them, Kissel said. That includes second-degree manslaughter with a firearm, among others.

Oh well, that’s interesting. Pray tell us, Courant, why these sentences would be reduced and what other crimes?

No? That’s not important to the narrative? Oh. Okay. Well, then tell us what the final version of the bill was.

Besides streamlining the law, the bill provides money for more prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, along with expanding the state’s “cold case” unit and providing additional re-entry programs for criminals who are released from prison.

“So many people fail on probation,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat. “So many people fail on parole.”

But McKinney said he was stunned when he read the original five-page bill. Currently, a criminal could receive 40 years in prison for compelling someone to have sex at gunpoint. The bill, crafted by Democrats, would reduce that penalty to 20 years, he said.

Wait. I’m confused. Is this the original version, the amendment that was scrapped or the final version? Don’t know? I don’t either. Good job there, Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief. Now I know less than I did when I started reading your story.

Can you condense all of this into bullet points for stupid old me?

# $5,492,000 to improve supervision of sex offenders who are on probation, including upgraded lie-detector and global-positioning-system (GPS) technologies. The money also would be used for truancy prevention and helping officials serve warrants on probation violators.
# $2,147,000 to hire more parole officers and prison guards, along plus expanding the use of GPS technology to track criminals who are on parole.
# $910,000 for the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to provide supportive housing and for improving the women’s jail-diversion program, among others.
# $681,000 to the Division of Criminal Justice for more prosecutors and better computers.
# $514,000 to hire more employees for the state police major crime squad.
# $252,000 to the Public Defender Service Commission for lawyers to handle more prosecutions and aide indigent criminals.

Yet nothing on penalties. Sigh.

Oh, by the way Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief, the correct term would have been “indigent defendants“, not criminals. Unless, of course, this bill removed the presumption of innocence. Which I have no way of knowing whether it did or not, because I didn’t understand anything you wrote.

Anyone have a link to the actual bill that was passed?

There’s a link dump coming later this evening, but for now here are some interesting CT stories:

• Crime and Punishment in CT, NYT.
• State’s surplus almost wiped out, WFSB.
• Affidavit reveals more about home invasion, WFSB.
• Move to allow 17-year olds to vote in primaries moves to Senate, Stamford Advocate.
• Homeless cleared from bridge, Stamford Advocate.
• Indifference to underage drinking, Hartford Courant.
• House votes to increase minimum wage, Stamford Advocate.
• E. Hartford police sued over arrest involving drug dog, Courant.
• Governor, majority Democracts draw closer on crime bill, Journal Inquirer.

This is some of the oddest “testimony” before a legislative committee. From CT News Junkie:

“From liquor and smoking in a state facility, from sex in actual offices to kickbacks from lobbyists…” [Michael] Marsulo said.

More than one legislator joked that they would like to know where the sex is happening so they could get some and many were asking each other if they were part of the 80 percent or the 20 percent.

Former Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan of West Hartford told the intern Tuesday that in 1970 he started his internship at the Capitol and it lead him to want to run for public office. He said the bulk of the people here are good people. “There are some bums, but there aren’t very many,” Sullivan said.

“This is what you get from politicians,” Marsulo responded.

Earlier during the exchange Marsulo said, “I can’t reveal a lot of where my sources are right now. I will in the future.”

Heh. The video is here and fast-forward to 1:15 to see it.

Update: Video below