Researcher: DC Page 1 5/27/21
OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 1093 (File 593, as amended by Senate “A”)*
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) police
procedures, (2) juvenile criminal matters, (3) security guards, and (4)
criminal record erasure under sSB 1019. 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;
5. prohibits law enforcement from using no-knock warrants;
6. expands the reasons a police officer’s certification may be
canceled or revoked by specifying that undermining public
confidence in law enforcement includes issuing unlawful
orders; 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 2 5/27/21
7. establishes the crime of “enticing a juvenile to commit a
criminal act”; and
8. requires the judicial branch to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of (a) decreasing the time between a child’s arrest and
initial court appearance and (b) establishing a diversionary
program for certain children who are arrested.
The bill also expands the list of convictions ineligible for erasure
under sSB 1019 to include (1) specified class D felonies and class A
misdemeanors, such as several assault crimes, and (2) any offense for
which the person has not completed serving the sentence, including
probation or parole. (sSB 1019, as amended by Senate “A” and passed
by the Senate, establishes a new process for erasure of certain criminal
records.)
Under certain circumstances, the bill also requires prosecutors,
before the court accepts a plea agreement, to notify the victim whether
the defendant’s conviction may be eligible for erasure under sSB 1019.
*Senate Amendment “A” eliminates the underlying bill’s provision
on motor vehicle consent searches and identification (§ 7) and adds the
provisions on (1) crimes ineligible for erasure under sSB 1019, (2)
police certification revocation or suspension, (3) enticing a juvenile to
commit a criminal act, (4) judicial branch feasibility study, and (5)
crime victim notification.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2021, except that a conforming
change is effective July 1, 2022, and the provisions on (1) the judicial
branch study are effective upon passage; (2) crimes ineligible for
erasure and victim notification are effective January 1, 2023; and (3)
unfavorable inferences for failure to record for (a) use of force is
effective July 1, 2021, and (b) civil cases is effective January 1, 2022.
§ 1 — CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARD SUBPOENAS
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. 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 3 5/27/21
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 UNFAVORAB LE 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
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. 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 4 5/27/21
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
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 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 5 5/27/21
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 — CONSENT SEARCHES ON THE PERSON
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
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.
§ 8 — NO-KNOCK WARRANTS PROHI BITED
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 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 6 5/27/21
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.
§ 501 — CONVICTION ERASURE INELIGIBILITY
Under sSB 1019, eligible (1) misdemeanors are subject to erasure
seven years after the person’s most recent conviction and (2) felonies
are subject to erasure 10 years after the most recent conviction. The
periods are calculated from the date the court entered the person’s
most recent conviction for any crime (with an exception for certain
drug possession crimes).
Under sSB 1019, these erasure provisions generally apply to (1)
classified or unclassified misdemeanors; (2) class D or E felonies; or (3)
unclassified felonies with up to five-year prison terms. However, sSB
1019 excludes (1) family violence crimes and (2) nonviolent or violent
sexual offenses requiring sex offender registration.
This bill makes the following additional crimes ineligible for this
erasure, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Bill’s Additions to List of Criminal Convictions Ineligible for sSB 1019’s
Erasure Process
The following Class D Felonies:
Assault 2
nd
degree with a firearm (not resulting in serious physical injury; other
cases are class C felonies) (CGS § 53a-60a) 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 7 5/27/21
Assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, or pregnant person or person with
intellectual disability 2
nd
degree, with or without a firearm (CGS §§ 53a-60b & -
60c)
Strangulation or suffocation 2
nd
degree (CGS § 53a-64bb)
Sexual assault 3
rd
degree (victim age 16 or older; other cases are class C
felonies) (CGS § 53a-72a)
Enticing a minor (1
st
offense, victim age 13 or older; other cases are class B or C
felonies) (CGS § 53a-90a)
Burglary 3
rd
degree with a firearm (CGS § 53a-103a)
Stalking 1
st
degree (CGS § 53a-181c)
Voyeurism (cases not covered by the sexual offender registration law; 2
nd
offenses and certain other cases are class C felonies) (CGS § 53a-189(a)(1))
Incest (CGS § 53a-191)
Obscenity as to minors (CGS § 53a-196)
Possession of child pornography 3
rd
degree (CGS § 53a-196f)
Possession of sawed-off shotgun or silencer (CGS § 53a-211)
Criminal use of firearm or electronic defense weapon (CGS § 53a-216)
Criminally negligent storage of a firearm (CGS § 53a-217a)
Abuse of an elderly, blind, or disabled person or person with intellectual
disability 2
nd
degree (CGS § 53a-322)
Failure to register as a sexual offender when required (CGS §§ 54-251 to -254) 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 8 5/27/21
The following Class A Misdemeanors:
Assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, or pregnant person or person with intellectual
disability 3
rd
degree (CGS § 53a-61a)
Strangulation or suffocation 3
rd
degree (CGS § 53a-64cc)
Abuse of an elderly, blind, or disabled person or person with intellectual
disability 3
rd
degree (CGS § 53a-323)
Any offense for which the defendant has not served or completed serving the
sentence, including any period of incarceration, special parole, parole, or probation,
until the required seven- or 10-year period has elapsed and the defendant has
completed the sentence.
§ 502 — CANCELLATION OR REVO CATION OF CERTIFICATION
Existing law sets various grounds upon which the Police Officer
Standard Training Council (POST) may cancel or revoke a police
officer’s certification, including for undermining public confidence in
law enforcement. The bill expands these grounds by specifying that
undermining public confidence includes issuing orders that are not
lawful.
For this provision, a lawful order is an order that is (1) issued by a
police officer who is in uniform or has identified him or herself as an
officer to the person the order is issued to at the time the order is
issued and (2) reasonably related to fulfilling the officer’s duties and
does not violate any state or federal law. The order must only be
issued to (1) prevent, detect, investigate or stop a crime; (2) protect a
person or property from harm; (3) apprehend a suspect of a crime; (4)
enforce a law; (5) regulate traffic; or (6) assist in emergency relief,
including administering first aid.
As under existing law, the law enforcement unit, under its
procedures, must have found that the officer engaged in this conduct
before cancelling or revoking an officer’s certification.
As with other actions for undermining public confidence, POST 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 9 5/27/21
must (1) give the officer notice and an adequate opportunity for a
hearing and (2) make a finding of the improper conduct by clear and
convincing evidence.
§ 503 — ENTICING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT
The bill establishes the crime of “enticing a juvenile to commit a
criminal act” and makes (1) a first violation a class A misdemeanor,
which is punishable by up to one year imprisonment, up to a $2,000
fine, or both, and (2) subsequent offenses a class D felony, which is
punishable by up to a $5,000 fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Under the bill, a person is guilty of this crime if he or she is at least
age 23 and knowingly causes, encourages, solicits, recruits,
intimidates, or coerces a person under age 18 to commit or participate
in the commission of a criminal act.
The bill defines a “criminal act” as conduct constituting a felony or a
misdemeanor but does not include recruiting a member of a criminal
gang.
§ 504 — FEASIBILITY STUDY ON REDUCING CHILD RECID IVISM
The bill requires the judicial branch to conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of:
1. decreasing the time between a child’s arrest and initial court
appearance, in order to increase the likelihood the child will
attend the appearance and reduce the likelihood of the child's
recidivism, and
2. establishing a diversionary program for arrested children,
where the participants must report to a judge, juvenile
probation officer, or licensed clinical social worker, on a weekly
basis from arrest until the matter’s adjudication, to reduce the
likelihood of recidivism.
The bill requires the judicial branch to report its findings to the
Judiciary and Children committees by January 1, 2022. 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 10 5/27/21
§ 505 — VICTIM NOTIFICATION
By law, before the court accepts a proposed plea agreement,
prosecutors must provide crime victims with written terms of the plea
agreement upon request, except in juvenile matters or youthful
offender cases.
Under the bill, if the proposed agreement would include a definite
or total effective prison term of more than two years, the prosecutor
must indicate to the victim whether the defendant’s conviction may be
eligible for automatic erasure under sSB 1019.
For these purposes, a “victim” includes a crime victim, his or her
legal representative, a member of a deceased victim’s immediate
family, or a person the deceased victim designated to make certain
decisions on his or her behalf.
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, 2022, 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).
Related Bills
sSB 1019 (File 613, § 3), as amended by Senate “A” and passed by
the Senate, establishes a process to erase records of certain criminal
convictions after a specified period following the person’s most recent
conviction.
sHB 6669 (File 600), favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee, 2021SB-01093-R01-BA.DOCX
Researcher: DC Page 11 5/27/21
has a similar provision establishing the crime of “enticing a juvenile to
commit a criminal act.”
COMMITTEE ACTION
Judiciary Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 32 Nay 6 (04/06/2021)