Hundreds testify in Hartford hearing for bills to shield schools, hospitals and limit license‑plate tracking

Hundreds of residents, students, teachers, health‑care professionals and labor and faith leaders pressed Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee on March 9 to pass a package of bills that would bar civil immigration enforcement from sensitive places, expand state oversight of federal officers and restrict how long license‑plate‑reader data can be kept.

"When I think about a school, I don't envision danger, I see education," said Jafet Gonzalez, a 17‑year‑old high‑school senior who testified in support of SB 91, the governor’s bill to designate schools, hospitals, places of worship and other public sites as protected areas where immigration enforcement is restricted. Dozens of other student speakers echoed that concern, saying fear of enforcement is keeping children at home and disrupting learning.

Advocates and clinicians described broader, non‑legal harms they say the bills would address. "Legislation to protect areas such as schools, religious spaces, municipal facilities and health‑care environments ... is very much needed to help all residents of the state," said Robin Gilmartin, a licensed clinical social worker, who testified about trauma and re‑traumatization tied to videos and reports of federal enforcement. Mental‑health witnesses told the panel they are seeing anxiety and missed appointments tied to enforcement activity.

Supporters stressed the bills are intended to preserve access to basic services. Norma Martinez Hosang of Connecticut for All testified that SB 91, together with companion proposals to limit data sharing and create legal remedies, would let residents "attend class, participate in after‑school programs and meet with guidance counselors without fearing that immigration enforcement will appear in their hallway."

Law enforcement and vendor witnesses pushed back on parts of the surveillance bill (HB 5449) but endorsed guardrails. Eric Weiner, who helped expose problems with a town contract for a private ALPR vendor, urged lawmakers to tighten contract language and FOIA definitions so municipalities cannot unwittingly cede control of location data. Chiefs representing the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association said ALPRs are valuable investigative tools and asked for a 30‑day retention period preferred by many departments; civil‑society groups and privacy advocates argued for much shorter retention and strict limits on sharing.

Kevin Kane of Flock Safety, one of the major ALPR vendors, told the committee the company does not sell customer data, that customers own and control sharing of their data, and that queries are logged for audit. Kane said Flock’s default rolling retention is 30 days and that the company encrypts data and requires two‑factor authentication.

On accountability, Inspector General Elliot Prescott told the committee the changes in SB 397 are intended to make it clear that his office can investigate and — where warranted — prosecute federal officers who violate Connecticut criminal law while operating in the state. Prescott also said the proposal would not expand his office’s remit to ordinary non‑deadly uses of force, but would clarify access to evidence and investigation authority in serious incidents.

Committee members asked detailed questions about whether existing Connecticut law already protects some locations and about the balance between investigators’ needs and privacy. Witnesses repeatedly urged the inclusion of several specific drafting changes: require a judicial warrant for enforcement in protected locations except in narrowly defined exigent circumstances; add clear, written response policies so schools and hospitals know how to act if enforcement appears; and include meaningful remedies and routes for review when someone is detained unlawfully in a protected area.

The hearing produced no votes. Committee members signaled interest in continuing to work on retention periods, FOIA carve‑outs and the precise legal language that would withstand constitutional and federal‑preemption challenges. Supporters said the trio of bills are interlocking: protected places reduce the places individuals fear to go, limitations on ALPR data prevent digital loopholes that could undermine those safe spaces, and SB 397 adds avenues for accountability when federal agents violate rights.

The hearing concluded after more than nine hours of testimony. Advocates asked committee members to move the bills forward with amendments — including a warrant requirement, tighter vendor controls and clearer remedies — so that schools, hospitals and houses of worship remain places where Connecticut residents can get care, learn and practice their faith without fear of being detained.