Researcher: DC Page 1 4/22/21
OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 1093
AN ACT CONCERNING CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARDS,
SECURITY GUARDS, BODY -WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT
AND SEARCHES BY POLICE.
SUMMARY
This bill makes various changes to the laws regarding (1) civilian
police review boards, (2) police body-worn recording equipment (e.g.,
body cameras), (3) consent searches, (4) security guards, and (5) no-
knock warrants. Specifically, the bill:
1. provides a process for a person to object to a civilian police
review board’s subpoena and allows the court to order
compliance with a board’s subpoena;
2. allows a police officer whose image or voice is captured on
certain recordings (e.g., body camera) to review the recordings
before they are disclosed in certain instances where there is a
request for public disclosure;
3. allows a trier of fact (e.g., judge or jury) to draw an unfavorable
inference from the deliberate failure of a police officer who
wears a body camera to record their use of force or other
relevant incidents in civil cases involving depriving someone’s
equal protection or privileges and immunities;
4. prohibits former police officers who were decertified in other
states from being licensed as security guards and other related
jobs; and
5. prohibits law enforcement from using no-knock warrants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2021, except that a conforming
change is effective July 1, 2022, and the provisions on unfavorable
inferences for failure to record for (1) use of force is effective July 1, 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 2 4/22/21
2021, and (2) civil cases is effective January 1, 2022.
§ 1 ─ CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARD SUBPO ENAS
The bill provides a process for a person to object to a subpoena
issued by a civilian police review board and allows the court to order
compliance with a board’s subpoena.
It allows the person issued such a subpoena to, within specified
timeframes, (1) serve the board with a written objection to the
subpoena and (2) file the objection in the Superior Court, which must
adjudicate the objection under court rules. A person who wishes to
object must do so within 15 days after the subpoena was served or on
or before the time the subpoena specifies for compliance, if the time is
less than 15 days after service.
Under the bill, if the person issued a subpoena fails to appear or
refuses to testify or produce the evidence the subpoena requires after
appearing, the Superior Court, upon the board’s application, may
order the person to appear, give testimony, or produce the evidence, as
the case may be.
§§ 2, 3, 9 & 10 ─ BODY-WORN AND DASHBOARD C AMERA
REVIEW AND UNFAV ORABLE INFERENCE IF CAMERA IS OFF
Right to Review (§§ 2 & 3)
Under existing law, police officers have a right to review recordings,
with their labor representative or attorney present, when they are (1)
giving a formal statement about the use of force or (2) the subject of a
disciplinary investigation where a body-worn recording equipment
(e.g., body camera) or dashboard camera recording is part of the
review. In these instances, the recordings are disclosable to the public,
upon request, by the earlier of (1) 48 hours after an officer has
reviewed it or (2) 96 hours after the recorded incident if the officer
does not review the recording. The bill changes the latter to 96 hours
after the initiation of a disciplinary investigation, thus potentially
increasing the timeframe before public disclosure.
The bill also extends this right to review to instances when a police 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 3 4/22/21
officer’s image or voice is captured on a recording for which a public
disclosure request has been made and (1) the officer has not been
asked to give a formal statement or (2) a disciplinary investigation has
not been initiated. The bill requires public disclosure by the earlier of
(1) 48 hours after an officer has reviewed the recording or (2) 96 hours
after the disclosure request, if the officer does not review it.
As under existing law, certain scenarios are, generally, not
disclosable, including the following:
1. communications with other law enforcement personnel, unless
within the performance of duties;
2. encounters with undercover officers or informants;
3. officers on break or engaged in personal activity;
4. people undergoing medical or psychological evaluations,
procedures, or treatment;
5. people, other than suspects, in a hospital or medical facility;
6. activities in mental health facilities, unless responding to a call
involving a suspect in the facilities; or
7. certain crime victims if it would be an invasion of personal
privacy (e.g., domestic or sexual abuse).
Unfavorable Inference (§§ 9 & 10)
Use of Force. Under the bill, beginning January 1, 2022, in
determining whether the use of force by a police officer who wears a
body camera (see BACKGROUND) is justified, the trier of fact (e.g.,
judge or jury) may draw an unfavorable inference from a police
officer's deliberate failure, in violation of the police body camera law,
to record the use of physical force.
Governmental Immunity. PA 20-1, July Special Session (JSS), § 41,
established a civil cause of action, beginning July 1, 2021, against a
police officer who deprives an individual or class of individuals of 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 4 4/22/21
state law’s equal protection or privileges and immunities. In creating a
cause of action against police officers in statute, the act, in certain
circumstances, eliminates the possibility of claiming governmental
immunity (i.e., common law protection from civil suit) as a defense to
these suits.
Under the bill, in these civil actions, the trier of fact may draw an
adverse inference from a police officer's deliberate failure, in violation
of the police body camera law, to record any event that is relevant to
the action.
§ 4 & 5 ─ DECERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS IN OTHER STATES
SERVING AS SECURITY GUARDS
The bill adds decertification as a police officer in other states,
including cancelation, revocation, or refusal to renew a certification, to
the list of criteria that make a person ineligible for (1) a security service
license, (2) a security officer license, and (3) employment with a
security service to perform security officer duties while his or her
security officer license application is pending. Existing law already
makes police officers decertified in Connecticut ineligible.
§§ 6 & 7 ─ CONSENT SEARCHES
The bill expands the instances where law enforcement officers may
perform consent searches on an individual or in a motor vehicle and
requires that they report information on their requests to search.
On the Person Searches
Under current law, an individual’s consent to conduct a search of
his or her body is not justification for a law enforcement official to
conduct the search, unless there is probable cause. The bill instead
allows a law enforcement officer to ask a person if he or she may
conduct a search of their person, if the officer has reasonable and
articulable suspicion that (1) weapons, contraband, or other evidence
of a crime is contained on the person or (2) the search is reasonably
necessary to further an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Under the bill, officers who ask to search a person, whether or not 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 5 4/22/21
the consent is granted, must complete a police report documenting the
reasonable and articulable suspicion for soliciting consent or the facts
and circumstances that support the search being reasonably necessary
to further an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Motor Vehicle Searches
Current law prohibits a law enforcement officer from asking for a
driver’s consent to search the vehicle or its contents when the vehicle is
stopped solely for a motor vehicle violation. The bill eliminates this
prohibition and instead allows police officers to ask for the drivers’
consent to search a vehicle they have stopped if they have a reasonable
and articulable suspicion that weapons, contraband, or other evidence
of a crime is contained in the vehicle. An officer who solicits consent,
whether or not the consent is granted, must complete a police report
within 48 hours documenting the reasonable and articulable suspicion
for doing so.
Under current law, for vehicles stopped solely for motor vehicle
violations, any search of the vehicle or its contents must be (1) based
on probable cause or (2) after receiving the driver’s unsolicited consent
either in writing or recorded by body-worn recording equipment or a
dashboard camera. The bill removes the requirement for the consent to
be unsolicited, but as under existing law, the consent must still be in
writing or recorded.
§ 7 ─ ASKING FOR NON-DRIVER DOCUMENTATION
Existing law generally prohibits law enforcement officials, during
stops solely for motor vehicle violations, from asking drivers for any
documentation or identification other than a driver’s license, motor
vehicle registration, insurance identity card, or other documentation or
identification directly related to the stop. This prohibition, however,
does not apply if there is probable cause that a felony or misdemeanor
offense has been committed. The bill expands this exemption to also
include when there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that such
an offense has been committed.
§ 8 ─ NO-KNOCK WARRANTS PROHI BITED 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 6 4/22/21
The bill prohibits police officers of a regularly organized police
department, state police officers, Division of Criminal Justice
inspectors, conservation officers, special conservation officers or
patrolpersons, or sworn motor vehicle inspectors from seeking,
executing, or participating in the execution of a no-knock warrant. The
bill requires that search warrants require an officer to provide notice of
the officer’s identity, authority, and purpose before entering the place
to be searched under the search warrant.
The bill requires the executing officer, before searching or seizing
anything, to read and give a copy of the search warrant to the person
to be searched or the owner of the place to be searched or, if the owner
is not present, to any occupant of the place to be searched. If the place
is unoccupied, the officer must leave a copy of the search warrant
suitably affixed to the place being searched.
Under the bill, a “no-knock warrant” means a warrant allowing
police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and
announcing their presence or purpose before entering the property.
BACKGROUND
Body Camera Requirement
Current law generally requires police officers to use body cameras
while interacting with the public in their law enforcement capacity if
they are sworn members of (1) the State Police, (2) a municipal police
department that has received reimbursement for body camera
purchases under the state’s grant program, or (3) a public university or
college special police force. Current law allows sworn members of all
other municipal police departments to use body cameras as directed
by their departments and in accordance with state law. Beginning July
1, 2020, all sworn members of law enforcement units and members of
those units who perform police duties must wear body cameras,
among other requirements (PA 20-1, JSS, § 19).
COMMITTEE ACTION
Judiciary Committee 2021SB-01093-R000593-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 7 4/22/21
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 32 Nay 6 (04/06/2021)