Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-892
AN ACT CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, DIVISION OF
Title: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Vote Date: 3/29/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 2/22/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Judiciary Committee
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, 129th District
REASONS FOR BILL:
During the July 2020 Special Session, An Act Concerning Police Accountability was passed,
establishing the Office of the Inspector General within the Division of Criminal Justice
independent of the Chief States Attorney to investigate police use of deadly force. This bill
would require the Inspector General appointment be made by the Criminal Justice
Commission and approved by the Connecticut General Assembly. This bill would make
various changes to the Criminal Justice Commission including appointments, annual reviews,
evaluations and recommendations for discipline of the Division of Criminal Justice, including
appointment of a member of the Criminal Justice Commission to the Division of Criminal
Justices Advisory board.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language changes the process in which an Inspector General is confirmed by
removing the requirement that the nomination go through the Connecticut General Assembly.
It states that if there is a deadlock in nominating the Inspector General, the Chair of the
Criminal Justice Commission shall be the tie-breaker. The substitute language clarifies that
the Office of the Inspector General is a separate office within the Division of Criminal Justice
and shall be selected within the confines of any existing collective bargaining agreement. The
substitute language requires that Criminal Justice Commission members now be confirmed
by the Judiciary Committee. The substitute language clarifies that the Criminal Justice
Commission member is a nonvoting member of the Division of Criminal Justices Advisory
Board and annual reviews and evaluations are to occur biennially.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice supports the creation of the Office of the
Inspector General understands and appreciates the concept of an independent Inspector
General, and it finds no constitutional fault with legislation which bestows upon the Inspector
General the authority to investigate the use of force by law enforcement officials, and to
recommend prosecution in appropriate cases. It was stated that the authority to make the
decision to prosecute rest exclusively with the Chief States Attorney or a states attorney.
Such a requirement will not undermine or impugn the independence of Inspector General
because neither the Chief States Attorney, nor a states attorney, can credibly refuse to ratify
a well-founded recommendation by the Inspector General to prosecute a particular case.
Transparency and accountability are ensured by the existing requirements that interim and
final reports be prepared, submitted, and publicly available, and by any other public
disclosures that the Inspector General chooses to make.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
None stated.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Connecticut Association of Prosecutors, President, Charles M. Stango opposes this bill
stating that it would give the Criminal Justice Commission the authority to remove, terminate
or discipline unionized prosecutors which contradicts the collective bargaining agreement
between the unionized prosecutors and State of Connecticut. (This opposition was satisfied
by the substitute language.)
ACLU-CT, Interim Senior Policy Counsel, Kelly McConney Moore opposes this bill stating
that the Inspector General must be appointed with speed and clarity which would not happen
with the current language requiring the Inspector General to be confirmed by the Connecticut
General Assembly. It is stated that designating the Chief States Attorney to be the tiebreaker
after purposefully excluding the Chief States Attorney from voting on the nominee position,
could destroy the appearance of independence of the Inspector General. It is encouraged
that the Committee selects a different tiebreaker process (which was addressed in substitute
language).
Connecticut, Resident, Maureen Blum opposes this bill stating that the Inspector General
position should be elected, not appointed.
Reported by: Justin Kaiser Date: April 6, 2021
Page 2 of 2 SB-892


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 51-278b, 51-279a, 51-280, 51-285, 51-277e, 51-277a
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute: 51-275a, 51-279a, 51-280, 51-285, 51-277e, 51-277a
File No. 486: 51-275a, 51-279a, 51-280, 51-285, 51-277e, 51-277a
Public Act No. 21-8: 51-275a, 51-279a, 51-280, 51-285, 51-277e, 51-277a