More than 160 people signed up to testify about a raft of legislation including S.B. No. 91, which would require judicial warrants for most civil immigration arrests in "protected areas." Many witnesses also spoke in favor of Raised Bill No. 397, allowing for lawsuits against federal agents in state courts and banning all peace officers from wearing masks without a health or safety reason, such as limiting exposure to cold weather and viruses.
The bills, similar to proposals in other states critical of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement protocol, would redefine the term "peace officer" under state law to include federal law enforcement officers and give the state's inspector general the power to investigate their alleged misconduct.
Inspector General Eliot D. Prescott, formerly a judge on the Connecticut Appellate Court, testified that in terms of federal law enforcement, current law limits "peace officers" to agents operating specifically under the Controlled Substances Act. It also includes various state actors like local police and judicial marshals.
"The state has the sovereign right to enforce the criminal laws against federal agents, regardless of what agency they work for," Prescott said.
"I don't want to say I'm anxious to take on this role, but I'm sure the 13 state's attorneys around the state are happy about that," he added later.
Prescott said his office would only handle the types of cases that are currently in its purview, such as in-custody deaths and use of deadly force, and his team has the necessary experience.
State Rep. Patrick Callahan, R-Danbury, said the expanded definition would cover corrections officers at the federal correctional institution in his district, "and so that would mean you'd be coming into the FCI."
There remain "legal questions" and limitations, Prescott said, but he was not prepared to speak to each scenario.
"For example, what about the sub bases and some other places like federal prisons that — that would be an issue, and I think that's something we would have to look at," Prescott said.
Callahan knocked the bill as "prepared in haste" and said the language would have "consequences."
State Rep. Greg Howard, R-Stonington, also expressed concern with how investigations may proceed. He said Prescott's office sent a memo to local police departments Feb. 6 that "seems to say that you want to be notified of ICE operations even if there is no deadly force."
Howard is a detective with the Stonington Police Department.
Prescott said his office asked municipalities to voluntarily "give us advance notice if ICE was operating in their location so that we can be prepared if there is an event that falls within my jurisdiction, but we're not seeking to expand the types of cases that we do."
In response to a question about investigative "barriers" from State Rep. Renee LaMark Muir, D-Chester, Prescott said the state wants a partnership with federal authorities, but it is unclear which agency would control the scene after an incident.
Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, supported S.B. No. 91 in written testimony, calling for accountability if federal officers unlawfully use deadly force. He also noted that the Trump administration "has rescinded" a federal policy that curtailed immigration enforcement at hospitals, schools and religious buildings, leaving immigrant communities in fear.
Monday's hearing featured an hourslong procession of speakers who supported new designations of protected areas, and many asked lawmakers to strip out what they said were overly broad exemptions like "exigent circumstances."
The bill limits immigration authorities' ability to arrest people at schools and colleges, hospitals and medical offices, and on the grounds of state and municipal facilities including their parking lots or garages. It exempts people who are the subject of a judicial warrant; who have been convicted of certain offenses like gun crimes, sexual assault or child abuse; or who may be a match to "the federal Terrorist Screening Database or similar database."
An Afghan immigrant who was acquitted in 2018 of sexually assaulting a classmate at Yale University testified in favor of Raised Bill No. 397. Saifullah Khan said that in May 2025, immigration agents confronted him at the Hartford federal courthouse without identifying themselves and "lunged towards me."
Khan said he ran, but the agents pursued, tased and detained him. He described what happened as "excessive force" that "could have been lethal."
He told the judiciary committee that he overstayed his visa "by a couple of months because I was going through a particularly difficult situation and I did not understand the law very well." His separate written testimony explained that he had gone to the courthouse for a scheduled immigration hearing and his alleged infraction was civil in nature.
Khan is also suing his accuser and Yale in federal court on claims including defamation, and he said he has filed for asylum.
He asked the committee to make sure that Raised Bill No. 397 applies retroactively.
"Under prior federal precedent, I would have had a pathway to hold these agents personally accountable through a Bivens action," his written testimony said. "Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have effectively closed that pathway. The result is a remedial vacuum: federal agents operating within Connecticut can violate residents' constitutional rights — rights guaranteed by the Fourth and First Amendments — and face no individual civil liability in any court."
U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea issued a standing order in June 2025 that limited arrests in the state's three federal courthouses.
Attorney General William Tong pointed out in his written testimony that Raised Bill No. 397 does not create new rights, and it is not limited to immigration officers. He said California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts and New Jersey provide state-level causes of action for constitutional violations.
"This bill is a necessary tool to foster a culture of trust and integrity within our institutions," Tong wrote.
The bill would also give the attorney general new powers to sue over policies that lead to civil rights violations.
Courtney Fontaine, who earned a law degree from Tulane University Law School and serves as the legislative policy associate for the nonprofit Institute for Justice, said the bill addresses "a serious problem."
"When a person's constitutional rights are violated by federal officials, as opposed to state or local officials, there's often no meaningful legal remedy available in either state or federal court," she said. "If a right doesn't have a remedy, it's not much of a right at all."
Advocates at the committee hearing spoke in favor of Raised Bill No. 5449, as well, which would prohibit the use of automated license plate readers "for the purpose of investigating a suspected immigration violation or otherwise assisting in any civil or criminal immigration enforcement activity."
Callahan, the Danbury representative who spent decades as a probation officer, said ICE is doing a job mandated by Congress and presidential administrations past and present, and "if change is needed, Washington is the place to go" to seek it. Immigrant communities, he said, "don't want criminals — whether they're here legally, illegally, or they're native-born Americans — living amongst them."
"It's a matter of taking people who have broken the law off the street so everyone else is safe," he said.
--Editing by Patrick Reagan.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
