Category Archives: ct legal news

Transgender 16-yo, transferred without charges to adult female prison, or maybe male

Since former Supreme Court justice Joette Katz has taken over the beleaguered Department of Children and Families (DCF), some weird ass shit has been going on over there. The latest is this really outrageous transfer of a transgender 16-year old male who identifies as female to an adult correctional facility.

It’s not like she’s actually arrested for anything, though. The Courant reports:

In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., in late January for an assault on a staff member — but the criminal charge was not pursued by prosecutors in Massachusetts. No criminal charges are pending against the youth.

The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in ”apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said [Assistant Public Defender] Connolly, who reviewed the report.

However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, does describe a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.

So? 16 year olds act out. There are no charges. The most galling part is that this is the very child that Commissioner Katz used as an example in her pitch for a locked detention facility:

On Feb. 14, Katz, while lobbying to open a secure treatment facility for girls in Middletown, brought up this youth’s story in testimony before the legislature’s appropriations committee. Katz didn’t name the youth, but said that a staff member was blinded and had her jaw broken in the assault. Katz said this youth would be appropriate for the locked program, which was the subject of opposition from advocates and some lawmakers. The allocation of $2.5 million was approved and the unit is now open on the campus of the former Riverview Hospital in Middletown.

A state source said that the blindness to which Katz referred was temporary, and that the worker’s sight has returned.

Advocates for children are questioning Katz’s decision to use the youth’s story to make her case for DCF’s locked treatment program, while pushing for the youth to be transferred out of DCF care and into an adult prison. DCF’s request for the transfer was filed in court on Feb. 4.

So now this child goes to the adult female prison – the only female prison, pending an evaluation. At which point, they might decide to send her to a men’s prison. Because, you know, that’s even better for this troubled kid.

This should come as no surprise, though, to people who follow the state juvenile and adult prison system. They’re quick to shove the problem off to someone else and the last thing you get in our locked facilities – be it for juveniles or adults – is the mental health treatment that so many desperately need.

A hierarchy of offenders

Clearly, in Connecticut, it is worse to be a prostitute than it is to be a robber and assaulter. Because there really is no other way to explain this story:

A local woman faces prostitution charges after police said she reported being robbed by a man who responded to her ad offering sex for money.

Get that? A woman, who was freely choosing to engage in a contract for sexual services, is such a danger to society that she must be arrested and prosecuted, while the guy who got angry with her and assaulted her and stole his cell phone, well, who cares about that, right?

What’s more offensive is that she wasn’t arrested on the scene. Some officer took the time to go back to his or her desk, write up a warrant, go to a judge, get it signed and then go track her down again and then arrest her.

I’m sure this will fix her. Meanwhile, Mr. John is free to rob and assault as many other ‘prostitutes’ as he likes, because…well, you know the drill.

H/T: Maggie McNeil.

Revenge porn bill makes it to senate: better but still unconstitutional

The Connecticut judiciary committee has voted by a margin of 39-11 to send that awful ‘revenge porn’ bill that I warned you about to the full senate. Except they’ve made a change or two to the bill that makes it better than before but still, in my opinion, quite damn unconstitutional.

  1. Don’t be fooled. That 1 no vote is because a GOP rep wanted greater penalties for this bill.

Grand juries, search warrants, revenge porn – oh, my, or: today at the legislature

For a short session of the legislature, there sure have been a large number of criminal justice bills already raised and considered by some committees. Today is no different, with a large number of “groundbreaking” bills being considered by the Judiciary committee. The public defender’s office and the CT Criminal Defense Lawyers Association have submitted written testimony on some or all of these bills1. What follows is what my testimony would be if they’d let me into the Capitol after that one time with the monkey and the backscratcher.

The Investigative Subpoena One Person Grand Jury Reform Bill


A perennial favorite of prosecutors, this bill has made its way back to the legislature. Year after year they bring up this bill, seeking to give themselves the power to just subpoena whoever and whatever to their office to conduct their investigations. Year after year this bill is defeated. But you gotta hand it to them, they keep trying.

And this iteration is slightly different. Instead of seeking to give themselves the power, they vest it in a “one person grand jury” – the presiding judge of the judicial district courthouse.

The rest of the shit is the same. As I wrote extensively last year, their standard for issuing subpeonas is the lowest, most nebulous, undefined piece of nonsense I’ve ever seen: the interests of justice.

What does that mean? Nothing. It’s not a real thing. It’s a free pass. The bill explicitly removes a requirement of probable cause and replaces it with this interest of justice nonsense.

What’s worse is that there’s no limitation on when the investigative grand jury can be used. Under the law as it existed, the State’s Attorney had to make a showing that they’d made an effort using normal investigative tools. They have to show that their regular methods weren’t working and they needed this invasive tool to make one last ditch effort at cracking a case. If they hadn’t tried their normal methods, they had to include a statement saying why. In other words, accountability.

This proposal does away with that and replaces it with the sort of investigative subpoenas that are coercive and dangerous.

But go ahead, keep trusting the State to do its business in secret. That’s never backfired on us.


The “revenge porn” bill


This is the bill that seeks to specifically criminalize the act of taking a nude photograph of a person who you were once intimate with and distributing that photograph on the internet without their permission.

Let’s be clear: it’s a totally douchey thing to do. It’s violative of someone’s trust and makes you out to be a complete asshole.

But is it a crime? Should it be a crime? Can it be a crime? These are the important questions.

As I understand it (and you really should read this post by Mark Bennett for a complete deconstruction of its unconstitutionality), a picture is speech. So when a picture is made public and the government seeks to put restrictions on it, it becomes a question of the Freedom of Speech which implicates the First Amendment.

As Mark explains, the bills don’t seek to criminalize all pictures posted, only pictures posted that meet certain criteria: nudity, non-consensual.

That’s a content-based restriction: you’re restricting speech based on the content of it. For example, in 2010 in U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court refused to find that “crush videos”2 were illegal.

But let us assume, for the purposes of this post, that “revenge porn” should and can be criminalized.3 What would a bill look like? CT’s proposal is:

(a) A person is guilty of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image when, with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm or terrorize another person, such person electronically disseminates, without the consent of such other person, a photograph, film, videotape or other recorded image of (1) the genitals, pubic area or buttocks of such other person, or the breast of such other person who is female with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion of such breast below the top of the nipple, or (2) such other person engaged in sexual intercourse, as defined in section 53a-193 of the general statutes.

I’m just going to list the problems with this in bullet format, because it’ll be easier:

  • The “Intent to annoy” language. That’s exceedingly vague and a terribly low standard that’s so variable dependent on the person being so “annoyed”. Your face is annoying to me. Are you a criminal now?
  • “Electronically disseminates”. The bill seeks to criminalize electronic dissemination but nowhere defines that. What if I show the picture to my dying brother in the hospital room? What if I post it on a flyer on a lamppost outside my house?
  • “The genitals, pubic area or buttocks” apparently don’t need to be naked. So I can take a picture of your fat ass as you bend over to pick up a McFry and put it on the internet and now I have to go to jail because you have low self-esteem.
  • This might already exist. Here’s “Breach of Peace in the 2nd Degree“, which states, in relevant part: (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person. Doesn’t that hit every note on the revenge porn bill? Why do we need a separate one again?4

The Search Warrant That Tracks Your Movement and Gets Your Email and Social Media


It’s innocuously named, but it covers a wide swathe and is important also for what it doesn’t cover. Primarily, the bill purports to bring into line our statutes to comply with two cases: U.S. v. Jones (the GPS case) and State v. Esarey (a case about out of state warrants for email). Also, this bill has nothing to do with the scope of search warrants for the search of your cell phone. That’s the subject of an upcoming column.

As for the GPS. the bill states that police can seek a warrant if they believe that “probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been, is being, or will be committed and that the use of a tracking device will yield evidence of the commission of that offense”.

So almost immediately we hit upon the first problem: how will a tracking device provide evidence of a crime that has already been committed? Because the warrant seeks to authorize the attachment of a device that tracks the movement of a person or object. So unless that movement in the future (for up to 30 days – another problem with the length of time) corroborates a crime in the past, I see that portion as problematic.

Next, the scope. As it currently stands, there is no limitation on the scope of the data collected and what it can be used for. For example, if the warrant states that the data is being sought to prosecute a high-level drug trafficker and the data shows that the suspect was at the residence of his girlfriend, who has a protective order against him, can the information be used to prosecute him for that? Just like warrants for the searches of homes are very specific as to what can be sought and seized, so should any warrant for this “tracking data”.

If not, doesn’t it become closer to those general warrants the founding fathers of our country so hated?

Speaking of general warrants, the other part of the bill that seeks to address State v. Esarey also succumbs to the same problem. The section incorporates the warrant requirement discussed above and applies it to out of state providers of data “or business entity that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the public”. In other words, your email providers and Facebook and Twitter.

Now imagine that: the police believe that you are about to commit a crime, so they get a judge to issue a warrant for your emails. As we’ve already discussed above, with a lack of particularity requirement in the statute, they get everything. EVERYTHING. All your emails.

Who’s to say they can’t read your emails and go on fishing expeditions to find other things that may be evidence of other crimes? Who’s to say they can read your emails and try to find crimes to fit what they see?

Worse, notice isn’t immediate, so you can’t move to quash the subpoena in time or file a motion seeking to limit its scope. The statute says that they have to let you know within 48 hours, but the company has only 5 days to provide all that data. There’s no provision that says they have to turn over the data unless there’s a motion to quash filed.

The Wiretapping/Eavesdropping Bills


This is one strange bill. Not by itself. By itself it’s a “revision” to the eavesdropping statute. It states that no one shall record a private telephonic conversation without alerting the other party in various ways and obtaining that party’s consent. It then lays out various exceptions, including ones for law enforcement and:

(4) Any party who records a telephonic communication, provided the intent of the recording is to memorialize evidence of a crime before, during or after the fact and the unaltered and undisclosed recording must have been submitted to law enforcement within a reasonable amount of time;

One of the exceptions is also the corporation that provides these telephone services as defined in C.G.S. 53a-187(a)(1). This is important when you combine this bill with the next; it becomes a little confusing as to its purpose.


Remember that 53a-187 I just cited above? This one makes changes to that bill. And the change is good, but it’s still a bit confusing in context. The change essentially is that the exception to unlawful wiretapping doesn’t apply to law enforcement acting in the scope of their duties. “Scope of their duties” is amended to now include:

when such official (1) has probable cause to believe that the cellular radio telephone has been used in furtherance of the commission of a crime and has obtained a search warrant that authorizes wiretapping of the cellular radio telephone, or (2) is otherwise authorized by state or federal law to engage in wiretapping of the cellular radio telephone.

There is, of course, already a whole set of wiretapping statutes (54-41a-41u) which aren’t mentioned anywhere.

So I’m confused. Why did we need the previous bill? What does this do? What do any of them do to the actual wiretapping statute?

More importantly, why was this necessary? What are we trying to fix? Is there a problem of law enforcement listening to conversations without warrants and/or PC and if so, why haven’t we heard about it?

Now you know. Call your legislator.


  1. I wrote this post yesterday at which point the testimony had not been posted. I haven’t seen it; I don’t know it; my opinion is mine alone.
  2. Videos of animals being tortured and killed.
  3. As Marc Randazza, First Amendment lawyer extraordinaire and someone who just got a $350,000 judgment against a revenge porn site operator says, there is no greater incentive to stop revenge porn than a civil damages law that would allow victims to sue the pants off the perpetrators.
  4. To see the dangers of vague laws that enforce one person’s dislike of another’s speech, see Krukowski v. Swords in which the prosecution for Risk of Injury was smacked down by the Federal District Court of CT.

In disregarding FOIA laws, CT lege has assistance from police departments

For a State that bills itself the Constitution state, Connecticut sure is running into a lot of problems with the First Amendment and Freedom of Information Laws, which seek to make government transparent.

First, the legislature, in a midnight session behind closed doors severely restricted FOI access in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. Then there were the disingenuous arguments by the state’s attorney to keep 911 calls private, and finally a new task force that’s further scaling back the FOIA public access provisions.

But yesterday, a tremendous investigative reporting project by the New Haven Register and associated newspapers concluded that most police departments in Connecticut are doing a terrible job of complying with FOIA laws by failing to release information to the public:

Under state Freedom of Information law, the record of arrest is public information. This means the name and address of the person arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest and the offense, and at least one of the following designated by the law enforcement agency: the arrest report, the incident report, news release or other similar report of an arrest.

The law also calls police records public records, with some exemptions: the identity of informants, signed statements of witnesses, information which would be prejudicial to a law enforcement action, investigatory techniques not known to the general public, juvenile arrest records, the identity of a sexual assault victim and uncorroborated allegations.

So, of all of these, what were they able to get?

State police troops typically got a B– range by providing arrest logs, but refusing to give detailed reports out. Troop G, however, didn’t even give an arrest log during a compliance check, so it was the only state police troop to get an F.  “That’s impossible,” state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said, when told our reporter got no information at Troop G. “Arrest logs and press releases are available to anyone in the lobby.”

Twenty-six departments got an A– rating, for both providing an arrest log and an in-depth report, though these sometimes asked for our identity, or don’t provide information online.  Overall, about 25 percent of police departments got a score in the A range.

Another 61 departments or troops, or about 59 percent of them, got a rating in the B range. These departments typically gave an arrest log, but weren’t forthcoming with in-depth reports.

Seven departments scored in the C range, such as Bristol, where they claimed FOI law prohibits them from releasing police reports on arrests until a case is adjudicated in court.  We gave out two D grades and six F grades.

Therefore, 15 percent of departments or troops scored a C+ or under.

Why, exactly, is this important, you ask? Because this is watching those that purport to protect us and have the power to change our lives drastically. Everything that police departments do should be open to public scrutiny so we can determine whether they are, indeed, serving the public or engaged in racially discriminatory tactics.

Death penalty in CT still alive

Pardon the pun, but the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 2012 was always an incomplete measure, in part because of the 10 or so men on death row who weren’t pardoned by abolition and because of the one remaining pending capital case of Richard Roszkowski.

Roszkowski killed three people, but got the death penalty for only the killing of one of them: 9-year old Kylie Flannery. This was the second penalty phase trial for him, the first also having ended with a death sentence, but that was reversed by the trial judge because of incorrect jury instructions.

It’s quite illogical to argue that our standards of decency have so evolved that we no longer consider death an appropriate punishment in the State of Connecticut, except for those people who committed their offenses before a certain date.

Ironically, I’ve been told that Roszkowski’s lawyers weren’t allowed to argue to the jury that the State has abolished the death penalty and thus they shouldn’t impose a sentence of death.

I guess when you get the taste of blood in your mouth, it’s really hard to let go.

And so now we have yet another deeply mentally disturbed man on death row, over whose murder we will spend decades and millions of dollars.

Because vengeance is more important. And killing is wrong. So we must kill to enforce that message.

Under new proposed law, no one in CT can accidentally download child porn

There can be little doubt that abuse of children has been the cause du jour. Children do get abused and used and should be protected. To that end, there’s a new bill in the CT legislature that seeks to make several “technical changes” to the child pornography laws, but which actually makes it impossible for anyone to avoid a five year minimum prison sentence, no matter how one came into possession of the video.

There’s a growing discussion among those who observe the effects of the harsh punishment meted out by our black-and-white justice system on the people who are the subject of these zero-tolerance laws: the similar treatment of those who engage in sexual behavior with children and those who, without ever touching a child, view pictures and videos of children in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts.

In other words, people are starting to realize that the two situations are disparate and should be treated as such. For one thing, the federal sentencing guidelines are over-the-top and maddeningly inconsistent. For instance:

  1. Putting aside any questions of free will on the part of “pedophiles”.
  2. They count one video as 75 images.
  3. There are other problems with this bill. Specifically the addition to the Class B felony which is completely confusing. The CT Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Assn. written testimony explains that (PDF).