Connecticut House Bill HB07069

Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Refer: 3/27/25
• Report Pass: 4/2/25
• Refer: 4/8/25
• Report Pass: 4/15/25

Caption

An Act Concerning Behavioral Health Assessments Of Police Officers.

Summary

HB 7069 revises Connecticut law governing behavioral health assessments for police officers. The bill requires each law enforcement unit to ensure that every police officer undergoes a periodic behavioral health assessment at least once every five years, beginning with the existing statutory framework and making the requirement a condition of continued employment. The assessments must be conducted by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker with experience diagnosing and treating PTSD, and the provider must be approved by the police union representing the unit’s officers. The bill also allows law enforcement administrators to stagger assessments so that roughly 20% of officers are evaluated each year over a five-year cycle. It permits waiving the assessment requirement for officers who have already given written notice of retirement, if the retirement date is within six months of the scheduled assessment. In addition, a department may require an extra assessment for good cause, but must provide the officer a written explanation of the basis for that request and the officer must comply within 30 days.

Impact

The bill amends Section 7-291e of the Connecticut General Statutes, effective October 1, 2025, and expands/clarifies the statutory requirements for police officer behavioral health assessments. It affects law enforcement agencies statewide, including municipal police departments and state law enforcement units, by imposing a recurring assessment schedule, setting provider qualifications, and establishing procedures for additional assessments and new hires from other jurisdictions. The bill also limits access to assessment-related information by prohibiting use of electronic health record systems, restricting disclosure of results, and keeping assessment records out of public disclosure and medical records.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support in committee, with the INS committee voting 13-0 and the Public Safety committee voting 27-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan agreement and little visible opposition at the committee stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively as a public-safety and officer-wellness measure.

Contention

The main policy tensions in the bill are between officer privacy and departmental oversight, and between union involvement and management authority. The bill requires union-approved clinicians for assessments, which may be intended to protect trust and confidentiality, but also limits employer discretion. Another point of potential concern is the authority to require additional assessments for “good cause shown,” which could raise questions about how broadly that standard is applied and whether it could be used in a punitive or intrusive way. The bill addresses confidentiality by restricting disclosure and barring access to electronic health records, indicating that privacy protections were a significant issue in the design of the legislation.