legislation

Legislation is pending again in Connecticut that would reduce the size of the zones near schools, daycares and public housing projects that trigger enhanced sentences for defendants convicted of drug possession and selling within those zones. Here is the piece I wrote about the subject for the Connecticut Law Tribune:

During the crack epidemic of the 1980s, it seemed like a commonsense move to help protect the young and the innocent.

The state would add enhanced penalties for drug possession and drug trafficking within 1,500 feet of schools, day-care facilities and public housing complexes. Drug defendants faced an extra three years on their prison sentence if convicted of the extra charge.

But in recent years, some lawmakers and members of the legal community have had second thoughts. The Connecticut General Assembly is once again considering legislation that would reduce the size of the drug-free zones from 1,500 to 200 feet.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter March 12. The legislation, which has the backing of both prosecutors and defense attorneys, has not been scheduled for a vote.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Borden, who now chairs the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, said the commission has recommended that there be a reduction in the size of the sentencing enhancement zones.

The commission found that in Connecticut's biggest cities nearly every piece of land is within 1,500 feet of a school, day-care center or public housing facility. And so the penalties for posessing drugs are the same in virtually every part of those municipalities. If there are no zones where penalties are increased, "there's no special deterrent, which is the theory of the enhanced sentences," Borden said. "If every area is a special area, then there is no special area."

The commission includes members from various sectors of the criminal justice system, and proposals adopted by the panel have the group's consensus, Borden said. Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, said there are state's attorneys on the Sentencing Commission and the office is supporting the commission-backed legislation.

Morgan Ruecker, a board member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and a partner with Shipman & Goodwin, said the Sentencing Commission "has come up with commonsense changes to address some issues that need to be addressed. This is a recommendation that we really support. It's an appropriate time to move forward with this."

The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), a Northampton, Mass.-based reform group, says the concept of drug-free zones in areas where children congregate is a popular one across the nation. A just-released PPI report says that Connecticut is one of the states with the largest zones. PPI found that 94 percent of Hartford residents, 93 percent of New Haven residents and 92 percent of Bridgeport residents live in areas covered by the sentencing enhancement.

The report's author, PPI's legal director Aleks Kajstura, said she understands the concern about reducing sentencing enhancement zones at a time when narcotics remain illegal. But Kajstura echoed Borden's point that the law hasn't really created any "pressure penalties" because entire "urban areas are essentially all within enhanced penalty zones."

There also are "racial disparities that this law creates" because more minorities live in cities, Kajstura said.

In a 12-month period ending in October 2012, 3,109 white defendants in Connecticut and 3,102 nonwhites were charged with drug crimes in school zones, according to prepared testimony by Sentencing Commission Acting Director Andrew Clark.

Connecticut is not the only state to revisit the issue. In 2010, New Jersey passed a law that requires judges to consider a variety of factors before handing down an enhanced sentence for drug arrests near schools and day-care centers. This past January, Massachusetts reduced its school zone radius to 300 feet.

Legislation that would have shrunk Connecticut's zones to 300 feet appeared on the way to passage last year in the Legislature before lawmakers from suburban and rural areas raised objections. They said the problems with the enhanced enforcement zones covering entire municipalities is an urban problem and that the zones should not be shrunk statewide.

"We're identifying an issue in urban areas and applying it to 169 cities and towns," Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, said during debate on the issue last year. "Who are we helping? We're helping that drug dealer who happens to sell his product 500 feet from a school."

This year, state Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, submitted testimony in opposition to the legislation. "Shrinking the drug zone, to my mind, is sending the wrong message" about illegal drugs, Srinivasan said.

The legislator said he does understand the concern that urban residents convicted of drug possession and drug trafficking are more likely to face enhanced penalties than rural residents. He said other policy changes should be considered. Last year, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have allowed municipalities to determine the size of school zones by local ordinance.

State Rep. Christie Carpino, a Republican who represents Cromwell and Portland, also submitted testimony this year to the Judiciary Committee opposing the reduction in drug-free zones.

Carpino noted that there are about 3,500 schoolchildren in her district. "Each one of these kids will face struggles throughout their lives," she said. "Giving drug dealers reduced penalties for selling close to their schools is one danger we should not impose on them."•

Earlier this year, I wrote about how many homeowners still waiting for insurance payouts after Superstorm Sandy will soon run out of time to take their cases to court if that is necessary. In Connecticut, it is industry practice to include in homeowners' insurance policies a time limitation on lawsuits. The law lets insurers limit lawsuits by property owners to 18 months after a disaster hits.

Now the Connecticut General Assembly has taken up a bill that would extend the time period to sue to two years after a disaster hits. Another bill would allow property owners to recoup attorney fees and court costs after a disaster.

An excerpt on my piece about the legislation for the Connecticut Law Tribune: 

Lawmakers are considering several pieces of legislation that would change state laws governing homeowners' insurance policies, including a bill that would award reasonable attorney fees and lawsuit costs to plaintiffs who win their cases against insurers.

The legislation is supported by trial attorneys, but opposed by the insurance industry.

State Rep. Robert W. Megna, D-New Haven, and co-chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, said there's merit in authorizing plaintiffs who win their cases to be able to obtain attorney fees and lawsuits costs.

When policyholders report damage claims to their insurers and when those claims have been denied to some extent, the policyholders have the burden of hiring an attorney and paying for that attorney out of any recovery they obtain, Megna said. The proposed legislation would remove that burden.

As it stands, attorney fees are "going to come off the property damage settlement," Megna said. "Even if the homeowner prevails, they're at a disadvantage when it comes to fixing their home."

The committee will decide this week whether the bills, including the attorney fees measure, will be voted out of committee, Megna said.

Ryan Suerth, a Hartford-based solo practitioner who represents policyholders in insurance disputes, testified in support of the legislation. "The intent of it is to ensure that the policyholder gets the benefit of the policy they purchased… You get taken care of 100 percent," Suerth said in an interview.

If the legislation is passed, there may be a decrease in litigation alleging bad faith by insurers or alleging that insurers violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Suerth said. Attorney fees can be obtained in those types of lawsuits but not in breach of contract actions prosecuted against insurers.

The Insurance Association of Connecticut said in submitted testimony that, at times, it can be unclear when policyholders "prevail" in legal action against an insurer, and thus it would be confusing just who is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

"The proposal is contrary to the traditions of the American judicial system," the association said in its prepared testimony. "Insurers should be able to challenge questionable claims when there is a good-faith basis for such a challenge … Examining the validity of claims helps insurers maintain rates for all policyholders by weeding out the frivolous or meritless claims."

If the policy behind the legislation is to deter insurers from unnecessarily denying or delaying claims, the threat of bad-faith claims or penalties from the Insurance Department already does that, the association said.