BAN ON PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS GETS FINAL LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL

The state House of Representatives granted final legislative approval
Tuesday to a bill banning life-threatening physical restraints at
state-run hospitals and psychiatric institutions -- and a spokesman
said the governor is expected to sign the bill. On the eve of today's
legislative adjournment, the House voted unanimously to adopt a
Senate-amended version of the bill prompted by the widely publicized
death last year of 11-year-old Andrew McClain at Elmcrest psychiatric
hospital in Portland. The bill specifically bans the use of holds that
restrict the flow of air to a patient's lung, the type of restraint
that led to Andrew's death.

The House's penultimate day held one major surprise -- when
representatives voted to change the decades-long police concept of
"plain view," as it would apply to gun seizures under a new law
awaiting the signature of the govenor. Plain view means that police
who have a warrant to search a home for a specific purpose can also
seize illegal items that are in plain view.

If police have a warrant to seize a gun under the proposed law, and
then find cocaine "in plain view" in the home, they would be unable to
seize the cocaine under the amendment passed Tuesday night,
legislators said.

The amendment was spearheaded by Rep. Richard D. Tulisano, the House
Democrats' senior member and the legislature's leading civil
libertarian. Tulisano was angered that the House had voted Monday, as
part of a new gun control bill, that police could seize guns from the
homes of mentally unstable or dangerous people by court order.
Tulisano's amendment, which now goes to the Senate, would prohibit
police from arresting anyone based soley on other evidence found
during the court-approved search and seizure of weapons.

"The citizen's home is still his castle," Tulisano thundered on the
House floor. Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, assailed the
amendment as bad public policy. "You know those technicalities that
people are always talking about? This is the technicality of all
time," Farr said.

Conceding that he was using humor to show the seriousness of the
amendment, Farr asked Tulisano about hypothetical examples to see what
the police could do in each instance. After the police entered the
home -- looking for guns under the newly passed gun bill -- they
opened up three different closets, Farr said in his example. In the
first closet was a large Brink's bag filled with money, soon after a
robbery in the area, Farr said. In the second closet was a dead body.
In the third closet was a man, chained to a radiator, with duct tape
over his mouth, trying to scream at the police officer.

Farr wanted to know what the police could do -- considering that the
warrant only allowed them to seize guns and nothing else.

Tulisano said the key distinction in the amendment was whether a crime
had been committed. The police certainly had the right, he said, to
help anyone who was in need.

After the debate, Farr was exasperated and stunned.

"I have no idea why we are doing this," he said.

Saying he had not seen Tulisano's amendment, Gov. John G. Rowland was
noncommital Tuesday night on whether he would sign the bill -- if it
reaches his desk. He said he was unsure whether many warrants would be
issued to seize guns under the provisions of the bill.

Lobbyists for police chiefs worked feverishly behind the scenes to
block the amendment throughout the day, but Tulisano's arguments
swayed his colleagues in the House. Opponents said police will
understandably be upset when they learn about yet another bill that,
if approved, would handcuff them.

"It's absolutely ridiculous. When a police officer enters a house
legally pursuant to a court order and sees evidence of a crime, he
can't use it in a prosecution?" said Wethersfield police Chief John
Karangekis, president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association.
"It's outrageous. You should be able to use it. I don't understand the
rationale."

Tulisano and other supporters of the prohibition on police powers
argued that if police are in a home to seize weapons for safety
reasons, they should not be allowed to go far beyond their court-
ordered mission. Both bills permit police to search for firearms in
homes and vehicles and seize them if a Superior Court judge finds
probable cause that someone owns weapons and poses an imminent threat
to himself or someone else.

"This is the first time in the history of this state, and perhaps the
country, that we're telling police that they can search a house under
a court order, but you have to keep your eyes closed," Farr said. "Anything
they learn about a crime, they can't use."