Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

Connecticut Senate Bill SB01230

Introduced
3/30/11  
Refer
3/30/11  
Report Pass
4/6/11  
Refer
4/18/11  
Refer
4/18/11  
Report Pass
4/26/11  
Report Pass
4/26/11  
Refer
5/5/11  
Refer
5/5/11  
Report Pass
5/10/11  
Report Pass
5/10/11  
Report Pass
5/11/11  
Report Pass
5/11/11  
Refer
5/19/11  

Caption

An Act Concerning Traffic Stop Information.

Impact

The legislation is poised to impact state laws significantly by reinforcing the principle that law enforcement actions must not be racially or ethnically motivated. As a result, police departments will be required to adopt procedural changes for reporting and accountability, affecting how traffic enforcement is conducted across Connecticut. This has broader implications for civil rights, as it seeks to protect individuals from potential discrimination during traffic encounters. The establishment of specific reporting protocols will also enhance data availability for further analysis on traffic stops across different jurisdictions.

Summary

SB01230, dubbed the Traffic Stop Information bill, was established to enhance transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices regarding traffic stops. The bill mandates that police departments must create written policies to prohibit traffic stops based solely on race, color, ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual orientation, aiming to address and curtail instances of racial profiling. It also requires police officers to complete standardized forms that document essential details of each traffic stop, including the demographic information of the individual stopped and the reasons for the stop. This data is intended to help in examining patterns of behavior and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.

Sentiment

Sentiment surrounding SB01230 tends to be supportive among civil rights advocates and community organizations that view the bill as a necessary step towards addressing racial profiling. Many argue it is crucial for building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, especially marginalised groups who may face disproportionate scrutiny. Conversely, some opponents, including certain law enforcement representatives, express concern over the administrative burden and feasibility of implementing the new tracking systems, highlighting potential issues in resource allocation and departmental capabilities.

Contention

Notable points of contention relate to the balance between effective law enforcement and the preservation of civil liberties. Advocates of the bill emphasize that comprehensive data collection on traffic stops can uncover patterns that necessitate reform, enabling better training and oversight of police activities. However, detractors warn that the added paperwork and procedural requirements may detract from police duties and effectiveness. The debate thus reflects broader societal tensions regarding law enforcement practices, public safety, and civil rights, underscoring the complexities of implementing such a comprehensive data-driven approach.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1081

After School Education and Safety Program: funding: authorized purposes.

CA AB1051

Education finance: state special schools and diagnostic centers.

CA SB1203

School safety: lockdown training.

CA SB527

Education finance: local control funding formula: home-to-school transportation: cost-of-living adjustment.

CA AB2434

County government: allocation of state funds.

CA AB898

Criminal records: automatic conviction record relief.

CA AB1391

Education finance: transitional kindergarten: funding for basic aid school districts and necessary small schools.

NJ S1199

Creates new $100 assessment for convictions of certain sexual offenses to fund counseling for victims and their families; establishes Sexual Offender Victim Counseling Fund.