Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Revisions Hb 7259 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears support for DNA databank changes, 'identified' sexual‑assault kit category and a chokehold clarification in HB 7259
Summary
Advocates and prosecutors told the Judiciary Committee that adding an "identified" category for sexual‑assault evidence and allowing limited sharing of certain DNA databank matches would help victims and investigations; the inspector general recommended clarifying chokehold rules so third‑party defense is explicitly permitted.
Advocates, prosecutors and the state inspector general told the Judiciary Committee on March 31 that several technical changes in HB 7259 would improve investigations and clarify use‑of‑force rules.
Beth Hamilton, executive director of the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, urged the committee to add a third category for sexual‑assault evidence kits: "The alliance strongly supports lines 1 through 98 and HB 7259, which will add the category of identified to the state's options for the collection and processing of forensic evidence and sexual assault crimes." She said the new pathway would let survivors choose to have forensic evidence tested without immediately filing a police report, giving victims time to decide while allowing DNA to assist investigations and link serial offenders.
Lisa D'Angelo of the Division of Criminal Justice described the operational mechanics of two proposals in the bill. Section 1 would allow a procedure for sharing a DNA databank match when the match involves a profile that was later determined not to qualify for inclusion in the databank, but where the information may be favorable to a defense. "Section 1 of House Bill 7259 would allow for a procedure when this situation occurs," D'Angelo said, explaining the division supports revisions that permit limited sharing in narrowly defined circumstances.
D'Angelo also supported section 2, which would add an "identified" classification for evidence kits so a survivor who has not reported to police can still have forensic material analyzed. "Adding the third category of identified would address the situation in which a patient would like the evidence collected to be analyzed by the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory but does not wish to make a report of the alleged sexual assault to law enforcement at the time the evidence is collected," she told the committee.
Robert Devlin, Connecticut's inspector general and a retired judge, urged a technical amendment to clarify use‑of‑force law after his office reviewed an incident in which an off‑duty trooper used a choke hold to free an on‑duty trooper who was in a choke hold. Devlin described the incident and said the Police Accountability Act's language made the legal landscape unclear for third‑party defenders. "When I wrote the report, it indicated that I'd try to bring this to the attention of the legislature to see whether or not a clarifying amendment might be possible," Devlin said, supporting the bill's language to permit a choke hold to defend a third person from deadly physical force.
Several speakers including law‑enforcement representatives also addressed other criminal‑justice sections in written testimony. The Division of Criminal Justice and advocates characterized the DNA and sexual‑assault kit provisions as trauma‑informed changes that would expand investigative tools without changing chain‑of‑custody norms. The inspector general and committee members discussed aligning the Police Accountability Act with traditional self‑defense law so officers acting to rescue a third party are not placed in a legal no‑man's‑land.
What happens next: Committee members heard technical and policy support for the sections; no formal votes were recorded during the hearing.
