Connecticut Senate Bill SB00273

Connecticut 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/14
• Refer: 2/26/14
• Report Pass: 3/19/14
• Refer: 3/31/14
• Report Pass: 4/7/14
• Refer: 4/22/14
• Report Pass: 4/24/14

Caption

An Act Concerning The Nondisclosure Of The Residential Address Of Sworn Members Of A Law Enforcement Unit.

Impact

If enacted, SB00273 would significantly alter the existing legal framework governing public access to certain types of personal information. The nondisclosure of law enforcement residential addresses would mean that public access to this information would be limited, directly impacting the transparency typically associated with public agencies. Supporters argue this change is necessary to ensure that officers can conduct their duties without fear of retribution or harassment at home.

Summary

SB00273 aims to amend the Freedom of Information Act to enhance the privacy protections for the residential addresses of sworn members of law enforcement units. This legislation is introduced in response to concerns over the safety and security of law enforcement officers and their families, given the sensitive nature of their work. By prohibiting public agencies from disclosing the residential addresses of these officers, the bill seeks to provide them with an additional layer of protection against potential threats.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding SB00273 appears to be supportive among law enforcement agencies and unions, which advocate for the protection of their members' private information for safety reasons. However, there may be concerns raised by transparency advocates who fear that such nondisclosure laws could lead to a lack of accountability within law enforcement. The overall discourse reflects a tension between the need for public information and the urgency of ensuring personal safety for those in sensitive positions.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding this bill include the balance between public access to information and the privacy rights of law enforcement personnel. Critics may argue that such legislation could potentially set a precedent for further restrictions on public access to information regarding state employees and could hinder the public's ability to hold law enforcement accountable. The discussions likely highlight the ongoing debate about transparency in government versus the safety provisions necessary for public servants.