The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.

SB 397CONNECTICUTSession 2026State BillSigned into law

Enacted

Connecticut Regulates Automated License Plate Readers, Restricts Police Facial Coverings, and Establishes Government Accountability Rules

Original title: AN ACT CONCERNING DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE USE AND RETENTION OF DATA DERIVED FROM AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEMS.

Last action · May 6, 2026: Transmitted to the Secretary of StateSponsors: Matt Lesser and 43 others

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓

Introduced

Committee

Floor Vote

Passed

Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

What This Bill Does

Substitute Senate Bill No. 397 enacts sweeping state accountability measures, limiting automated license plate reader (ALPR) data retention to 21 days, prohibiting police officers from wearing personal disguises or facial coverings during public interactions, and restricting civil-offense arrests in s such as schools, hospitals, and courthouses.

Why it matters

Residents gain new legal protections against civil arrests in sensitive locations, individuals can sue law enforcement or private vendors for privacy and data-sharing violations, and police agencies must comply with strict data-sharing limitations and public reporting requirements for license plate scanners.

Background

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have been increasingly deployed by police departments and municipalities across the United States, sparking ongoing legislative debates over privacy, data retention periods, and potential surveillance overreach. context
Connecticut enacted significant police accountability legislation in recent years following nationwide calls for law enforcement reform, creating specialized oversight bodies like the Office of the Inspector General. context

Who It Affects

Groups the bill's text affects, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Peace officers

Police officers are subject to new restrictions on wearing facial coverings, must display badges and name tags, face loss of immunity for intentional torts committed while masked, and must adhere to strict guidelines regarding automated license plate readers.

Directly affected

Law enforcement agencies

Police departments and law enforcement units must adopt ALPR usage policies by January 1, 2027, comply with data retention limits, file annual usage reports, and restrict civil arrests in protected areas.

Directly affected

Private vendors

Private companies contracting with public agencies for ALPR systems face strict prohibitions on selling or sharing data, mandatory choice-of-law provisions, and direct civil liability for data privacy violations.

Directly affected

Residents

Citizens gain protections against civil arrests in sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals, limitations on government license plate tracking, and the right to bring civil actions for violations.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long can police or public agencies store license plate reader data?

Starting October 1, 2026, public agencies and private vendors under contract are generally prohibited from retaining automated license plate reader data for more than 21 days, unless an exception applies, such as a court warrant, active criminal investigation, or municipal tax compliance.

Can police officers wear masks or facial coverings while on duty?

No, peace officers carrying out law enforcement duties are prohibited from wearing any facial covering or personal disguise that conceals their identity while interacting with the public, except for health and safety reasons like medical masks, smoke protection during fires, or authorized undercover operations.

Can an individual be arrested for a civil offense at a school or hospital?

No, peace officers are prohibited from detaining, arresting, or taking individuals into custody on the basis of a in s—including schools, hospitals, places of worship, and social service establishments—unless acting in an official capacity pursuant to a judicial warrant.

What happens if a private vendor violates state rules regarding license plate reader data?

The Attorney General may bring an action against private vendors for selling data, unauthorized sharing, or violating storage rules. Courts may grant injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

Current status: Signed into law.

Procedural history

33 actions

May 6, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Transmitted to the Secretary of State
May 5, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyEnrolled
Public Act 26-14
May 4, 2026Governor of ConnecticutEnrolled
Signed by Governor in Original
May 1, 2026Governor of Connecticut
Rules Suspended, Transmitted to the Governor
May 1, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
In Concurrence
May 1, 2026HouseFloor
House Passed as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A,B

Show 27 earlier actions

May 1, 2026HouseFloor
House Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule A,B
Apr 30, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyFloor
Bill Passed Temporarily
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule J 4748
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule I 5371
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule H 5004
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule G 4696
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule F 4697
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule E 4990
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule D 4704
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule C 4745
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule B 4698
Apr 30, 2026House
House Rejected House Amendment Schedule A 4710
Apr 16, 2026House
House Calendar Number 455
Apr 16, 2026House
Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, House
Apr 14, 2026SenateFloor
Senate Passed as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A,B
Apr 14, 2026Senate
Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule C 4100
Apr 14, 2026SenateFloor
Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule B 4114
Apr 14, 2026SenateFloor
Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule A 4084
Apr 2, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
File Number 399
Apr 2, 2026Senate
Senate Calendar Number 245
Apr 2, 2026Senate
Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate
Apr 2, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Reported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office
Apr 1, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/07/26 5:00 PM
Mar 24, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Filed with Legislative Commissioners' Office
Mar 23, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Joint Favorable Substitute
Mar 5, 2026Connecticut General Assembly
Public Hearing 03/09
Mar 3, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyCommittee
Referred to Joint Committee on Judiciary

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Discoveries

2 patterns noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift99% confidence

Comprehensive Regulation of Automated License Plate Readers

The state establishes a strict 21-day default retention limit for ALPR data and imposes heavy restrictions on data sharing with out-of-state or federal agencies without warrants.

Police Officer Standards and Training Council Attorney General Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at The University of Connecticut

cross reference95% confidence

Loss of Immunity for Masked Officers Committing Intentional Torts

Police officers who commit intentional torts while knowingly wearing a facial covering in violation of the statute lose their entitlement to assert privileges or official immunity.

Police Officer Standards and Training Council

Connected Entities

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Office of the Inspector General, Attorney General and 5 more

OrganizationCommission on Human Rights and Opportunities“Receives complaints and handles discrimination matters”Map →

OrganizationOffice of the Inspector General“Investigates police use of force and custody deaths”Map →

PersonAttorney General“Authorized to investigate, intervene, or bring civil actions”Map →

OrganizationDepartment of Correction“Manages correctional facilities and custody oversight”Map →

OrganizationGeneral Assembly“Connecticut state legislature passing the act”Map →

OrganizationInstitute for Municipal and Regional Policy at The University of Connecticut“Compiles and analyzes annual ALPR usage reports”Map →

OrganizationDepartment of Emergency Services and Public Protection“Oversees the Division of State Police and adopts regulations”Map →

OrganizationPolice Officer Standards and Training Council“Adopts model policies and handles officer certifications”Map →

Sources

Open source document

cga.ct.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance90
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy75
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz65
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

What This Bill Does

Who It Affects

Key Facts

Frequently Asked Questions

News Coverage

Where This Stands

Procedural history

Version history

Lobbying Activity

Full breakdown

Sponsors

Discoveries

Comprehensive Regulation of Automated License Plate Readers

Loss of Immunity for Masked Officers Committing Intentional Torts

Connected Entities

Sources

Analysis Score

Share or embed this record