SB 397 is a broad public-safety and civil-rights bill that combines several distinct policy changes. It creates a state-law civil remedy for violations of federal constitutional rights, modeled on 42 U.S.C. 1983, and authorizes suits against persons acting under color of law, including federal officers or employees, while preserving immunities and sovereign immunity limits. It also expands the Attorney General’s authority to investigate and bring civil actions for patterns or practices that deprive people of constitutional or statutory rights, including discriminatory or coercive conduct, and it preserves parallel jurisdiction for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
A major portion of the bill revises Connecticut’s use-of-force and police accountability framework. It expands and clarifies the Inspector General’s authority to investigate deaths involving police or correctional custody, requires public reporting, authorizes subpoenas, and directs prosecution when force is found unjustified or when officers fail to intervene or report incidents. The bill also tightens rules on chokeholds, requires clearer officer identification, restricts facial coverings and disguises by officers in public-facing duties, limits hiring of officers with serious misconduct histories, and changes standards for recertification and discipline. It further limits immunity for certain intentional torts committed while an officer is violating the facial-covering rules.
The bill also places substantial restrictions on automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems and data. Beginning in 2026, it limits who may operate ALPR systems, how data may be retained, when it may be shared, and what purposes are prohibited, including immigration enforcement, targeting protected First Amendment activity, and investigations involving reproductive health care or gender-affirming care that are lawful in Connecticut. It makes ALPR data generally confidential, creates reporting and audit requirements, restricts vendor contracts, and authorizes enforcement actions and civil penalties against public agencies and private vendors that violate the rules. The bill also requires statewide model policies, agency policies, and annual reporting on ALPR use.
The bill’s impact on state law is extensive: it amends civil-rights enforcement, police accountability, correctional and custody investigations, POST certification rules, courthouse and facility arrest restrictions, and ALPR privacy and data-governance rules. It creates new causes of action for aggrieved individuals, new duties for the Attorney General, Inspector General, law enforcement agencies, and public agencies, and new limits on data retention, sharing, and surveillance practices. It also adds criminal penalties for certain officer conduct, including violations of the facial-covering and identification requirements.
Overall, the sentiment reflected in the vote history appears mixed but ultimately favorable to passage, with the bill advancing through committee and both chambers despite several failed amendment attempts in the House. The final House vote was 89-53, suggesting meaningful support but also substantial opposition. The main points of contention appear to have been the bill’s breadth, especially the new restrictions on police practices and ALPR surveillance, the limits on law-enforcement discretion, and the privacy and civil-liberties implications of the data-sharing and enforcement provisions. Supporters likely viewed it as a government-accountability and civil-rights measure, while opponents likely saw it as overly restrictive or burdensome for law enforcement and public agencies.
SB 397 substantially revises Connecticut statutes governing civil-rights enforcement, police use of force, Inspector General investigations, POST certification, courthouse arrests, and automated license plate reader use. It creates new statutory causes of action and enforcement powers, imposes new reporting, retention, and privacy obligations on public agencies and vendors, and adds new limits on law-enforcement conduct and immunity. The bill also affects state and municipal agencies, law-enforcement officers, correctional officials, private vendors, and individuals whose rights or data are implicated.
The bill appears to have been generally supported enough to pass, but with clear partisan or policy-based division. It cleared committee and passed the House on the final vote after several unsuccessful amendment attempts, indicating that many legislators supported the accountability and privacy goals while others objected to specific provisions. The vote pattern suggests the bill was viewed as significant and controversial rather than routine.
The most notable disagreements likely centered on the bill’s restrictions on police practices and surveillance. Opponents may have objected to the limits on facial coverings, the narrowing of immunity, the expanded civil liability, and the constraints on ALPR use and data sharing, especially for law enforcement and interagency cooperation. Supporters likely emphasized civil rights, transparency, privacy, and accountability, particularly around police misconduct, immigration enforcement, reproductive health care, and gender-affirming care. The failed House amendments suggest there were attempts to modify or narrow the bill’s scope before final passage.