An Act Requiring The Inclusion Of Certain Information In The Standardized Method Of Recording Traffic Stop Information.
HB 6853 updates Connecticut’s traffic-stop data collection law by expanding the standardized form used by police officers and other agencies with traffic-stop authority. The bill requires the form to capture additional details about each stop, including the date, time, location, officer identifier, the stopped driver’s race, ethnicity, age, and gender as perceived by the officer, the alleged violation and statutory citation, whether automated enforcement tools were involved, and the outcome of the stop, such as warnings, citations, searches, or arrests.
The bill also requires the standardized method to include notice and instructions for people stopped by police so they can file a complaint if they believe they were stopped, detained, searched, or otherwise targeted based on race, color, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or another protected class. It further directs agencies to use the standardized method to report complaint data and to submit traffic-stop data to the Office of Policy and Management.
The bill amends subsection (b) of section 54-1m of the general statutes, which governs Connecticut’s standardized method for recording and reporting traffic-stop information. It broadens the required data elements, adds complaint-notice procedures, and reinforces reporting obligations for municipal police departments, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, and any other agency authorized to conduct traffic stops. The act is effective October 1, 2025, and is intended to strengthen the state’s racial profiling and traffic-stop oversight framework.
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill, with the Public Safety Committee reporting a 29-0 joint favorable vote. No committee transcript was provided, but the unanimous vote suggests broad agreement on the need for more detailed traffic-stop data collection and complaint procedures. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively as an administrative and civil-rights oversight measure.
No recorded committee debate is available, and the unanimous committee vote indicates little visible opposition in the materials provided. The most likely points of concern are operational: police agencies may need to adjust recordkeeping systems, train officers on the expanded data fields, and ensure complaint notices are provided when feasible. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on officer observation for race, ethnicity, age, and gender, which can raise questions about accuracy and consistency, but no explicit opposition is shown in the record provided.