Debates about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were at the center of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee’s public hearing on Monday, March 9.
The Committee reviewed several bills that were meant to increase state oversight of ICE officers, and one that would expand the state’s Trust Act.
Two of the proposed bills with the potential to expand Connecticut’s purview of immigration are SB 91, or “An Act Enhancing the Investigative Authority of the Inspector General and Establishing Protected Areas,”and SB 397, or “An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability.”
Both bills would amend existing statutes to expand the definition of “peace officer,” among other things. Currently, the only federal agents who fall under the state’s definition of peace officer deal with narcotics. These bills would broaden that definition to “any federal law enforcement officer.”
“The proposed change to the definition of peace officer would do nothing to alter the fundamental fact that the state of Connecticut currently has a broad sovereign interest in ensuring that everyone complies with the current laws in the state of Connecticut, including all federal officers,” Connecticut Inspector General Eliot Prescott said during the hearing. He testified in favor of both SB 91 and SB 397. “The state has the sovereign right to enforce the criminal laws against federal agents, regardless of what agency they work for.”
But Prescott did concede that the proposed legislation, as written, had “limitations and some legal questions” that he needed to look into. Specifically, there were issues over how, as written, officers on the naval base in New London and in federal detention centers could be considered “peace officers.”
“It seems like some of this was prepared in haste to succumb to political pressure for this hearing today,” said Rep. Patrick Callahan (R-Danbury). “These are words that have consequences in districts like mine, and it seems to me that the state of Connecticut is going to start redefining what certain officers are in order to fit a mold so the state can come in to prosecute, and I have reservations about that.”
HB 5449 is another bill discussed by the Committee and would explicitly limit how government officials could use data from automated license plate data reader (ALPR) systems, and how long data can be held for. The proposed bill would prohibit license plate data from being used to prosecute people for civil or criminal immigration violations, abortions, gender affirming care, or identifying people “engaged in an activity protected under the First Amendment.”
If passed as written, the law would require law enforcement agencies to delete data after seven days if the data is not being used for a criminal investigation or to collect highway usage fees.
The seven-day retention period was the topic of serious debate: Farmington Police Chief Paul Melanson and Groton Police Chief L. J. Fusaro both testified on behalf of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association in favor of expanding that waiting period to help prosecute crimes, particularly those involving elderly victims of fraud. They argued that the Trust Act already prevents state officers from sharing that data with ICE.
The debate went both ways: HB 5439, or “An Act Concerning Civil Immigration Detainers for Persons Who are Charged with the Commission of a Class A, B or C Felony or a Family Violence Crime,” would expand the Trust Act.
Under the proposed changes, state officers could work with ICE to help detain and deport people who are charged with or convicted of Class A, B, or C Felonies or Family Violence Crimes. Currently, state law enforcement can only cooperate with ICE agents to deport people convicted of Class A or B Felonies.
Editor’s Note: Investigative Reporter Katherine Revello, in her capacity as a Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information board member, submitted testimony on HB 5449.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
