"REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answers. I cannot support this. I will echo the responses from my colleague from New Haven.

We cannot have more people going without insurance. I have had two accidents by people who have had no insurance. The number of uninsured continues to increase.

I think we need to look at this, and we need to evaluate how we're charging people for the cost of auto insurance.

There was an article in the paper the other day about the fact that people in Hamden now are going to other areas to get their car insurance because they can't afford it in Hamden. So the suburbs are starting to feel the same pinch that we are in the city.

Everybody is understanding that the cost of car insurance is increasing, and this is not a help. This is a hindrance, and we are going to have a disastrous effect, so I will not be supporting the Amendment."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the transcript of the Connecticut House of Representatives - May 16, 2007:

"REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please frame your question, Madam.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Representative Witkos, in your Amendment, are you stating that if there are two people fighting in the home, and the police feel that the circumstances arise that they don't necessarily have to take either one of them down, they give them a promise to appear and then they leave?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The police officer arrives on the scene and believes that, under the statutes they are currently required to stay on scene until the situation is, doesn't believe it's going to be heightened or continue, then they can leave and make sure there will not be a continued action on the part of the reason why they were called there.

So if, your example, if you were called to the scene and there were two individuals you thought that they would not continue on in their fight, they could issue a written promise to appear to both individuals, and then they would clear from the scene. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm concerned about that because when you go to a domestic violence situation, nine times, a lot of times, the female feels extremely intimidated and she sometimes is going to say to the officer, everything is fine because she feels she's obligated.

That's the whole problem with domestic violence. It's being overpowered and controlled, and if the officer does not separate them for at least 24 hours, then I have a problem with that because you're still leaving whomever is being abused in jeopardy of being attacked later on once the policeman leaves.

So I guess I'm confused, if this Amendment goes through, the police officer is going to leave a situation that is not diffused. It's just temporarily put down for a while.

So, I guess, through you, to the proponent again, Mr. Speaker, if the officer walks away from the circumstance, both parties are still going to be left there in the home, and the responsibility falls back in the home. Am I not correct?

I guess I need to have it clarified again, because to me, that's the whole problem, and we need to separate the two so that they can [inaudible], but through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Yes, thank you, and through you, Mr. Speaker, maybe I mis-communicated. The current policy is that you have to make an arrest. It's by law you must make an arrest. No individual or victim can say I don't to press charges against him. The state orders the police by law you must make an arrest.

There's nothing in statute that says it has to be a custodial arrest at the current time. But what often happens was, if the police had the person in custody down at the police station, they'd say, well, you're going to stay at a friend's house tonight. We can't legally tell you that, but we don't want you to go home.

The police had no powers to enforce that, and this Bill before us gives the police the powers to enforce, saying you either can't contact the person, you can't come within X amount of feet.

The current thing, no contact. You can't enter the residence unless it's under police escort, all the things that are currently provided for generally under a protective order, the police will be able to issue that evening, that minute, once an arrest is made.

And then when they appear in court the next day, the judge will either reaffirm that or change whatever the police officer issued.

A police officer is not going to leave somebody if they believe the violence is going to continue. This Bill allows or gives them, my Amendment gives them the opportunity if both parents are going to be arrested, to allow one parent to stay there to care for children in the home, and that was the intent behind the Amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

I thank the gentleman for the answer. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure, again. That means that one person, if both of them are there and one of them is going to be taken out, no matter what, and if that's the case then I'm perfectly fine with the Amendment, and then I'm okay, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."