Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Witnesses urge easing strict address‑verification rule in SB 509 to avoid punitive outcomes
Loading...
Summary
Multiple witnesses and advocates told the Judiciary Committee that Connecticut’s 10‑day address verification rule for certain registrants can produce harsh, disproportionate outcomes; SB 509 would extend timelines, allow an extra notice and add an affirmative defense, proponents said.
William Hobson, a licensed professional counselor, told the Judiciary Committee that rigid address‑verification rules can destroy progress toward rehabilitation and reintegration. “The best way of doing this is through a combination of treatment and community supervision, and research shows that these approaches help,” Hobson said in testimony supporting SB 509.
Alex Brown, an MSW student and advocate who has lived under long‑term supervision, said the current statute imposes strict liability for late or undelivered mail and can trigger felony charges for delays outside a registrant’s control. “SB 509 moves us in that direction,” Brown said, describing the bill’s provisions to lengthen the response window, allow a second notice and create an affirmative defense while retaining accountability.
Family members and community advocates described cases they said showed the law’s harms. Cindy Prizio, reading written testimony for One Standard of Justice, said her son faced the prospect of returning to custody because of missed mail and asked the committee to “Please support 5 0 9.” Supporters highlighted routine postal delays, homelessness and hospitalization as reasons that timely mail return can be impossible for some people.
Committee members questioned witnesses about safeguards against abuse. Proponents answered that SB 509 does not eliminate verification; it shifts a reasonable number of days so compliance is feasible while preserving enforcement for willful noncompliance. Witnesses also said technology (email/fax) helps, but many people lack reliable access.
The hearing produced no vote. The bill will remain before the Judiciary Committee for further consideration; committee members indicated continued dialogue with advocates and law‑enforcement partners would follow.
