Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 46b-38c
(P.A. 86-337, S. 3; P.A. 87-567, S. 3, 7; P.A. 89-219, S. 1, 10; P.A. 91-6, S. 2, 3; 91-24, S. 3; 91-381, S. 4; P.A. 93-280, S. 2; 93-343; P.A. 96-180, S. 125, 166; 96-246, S. 33, 34; P.A. 97-126, S. 2; P.A. 01-130, S. 13; P.A. 02-132, S. 13, 14, 55; P.A. 03-202, S. 5; P.A. 05-288, S. 157; P.A. 06-196, S. 170; P.A. 07-78, S. 2; Sept. Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-7, S. 65; P.A. 10-43, S. 13; 10-144, S. 3; P.A. 11-152, S. 4; P.A. 12-114, S. 3, 6, 24; 12-133, S. 42; June 12 Sp. Sess. P.A. 12-1, S. 131; June 12 Sp. Sess. P.A. 12-2, S. 98; P.A. 13-3, S. 38; 13-214, S. 3, 12; P.A. 14-217, S. 125; 14-234, S. 10; P.A 15-211, S. 21; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-5, S. 441; P.A. 16-71, S. 13; P.A. 17-163, S. 3; 17-237, S. 114; P.A. 18-5, S. 4.)
Cited. 219 Conn. 752. The trial court may issue a criminal protective order at defendant’s arraignment after consideration of oral argument and the family violence intervention unit’s report; the trial court is required to hold, at defendant’s request at arraignment, a subsequent hearing within a reasonable period of time at which the state will be required to prove the continued necessity of the order by a fair preponderance of the evidence, which may include reliable hearsay testimony, and defendant will have an opportunity to proffer relevant evidence; legislature did not intend for this section and Sec. 54-63c(b) to entitle defendant to an evidentiary hearing beyond consideration of parties’ arguments and unit’s report prior to the initial issuance of a criminal protective order at arraignment, which may occur within hours of the alleged incident of family violence. 294 C. 1. Cited. 45 CA 722. Writ of error challenging the constitutionality of this statute was improper where Sec. 54-63g provides exclusive remedy of petition for review of an order concerning release. 110 CA 653. Ability to issue a protective order, which is a restriction on defendant’s liberty, is not punitive but is meant to protect victims of family violence, and the state has a legitimate and significant interest in doing so; creation of a class of victims and defendants does not affect prosecution of any crime, does not afford victim greater rights with regard to defendant’s prosecution, and is a legitimate classification, being neither arbitrary nor irrational, and thus does not violate equal protection rights; defendant’s due process rights were not violated by issuance of a protective order without an adversarial hearing; issuance of a protective order is not in the nature of a trial, so defendant was not denied right to an impartial tribunal; summons for disorderly conduct and report from an officer is sufficient information to find beyond a preponderance of the evidence that a protective order should be issued; there is no right against self-incrimination since information was not used in defendant’s criminal case, but only to determine whether to issue a protective order. 46 Conn.Supp. 598. Subsec. (e): Nothing in Subsec. prohibits state from bringing charges for other criminal acts in addition to violation of protective order. 151 CA 590. Subsec. (g): Subsec. does not provide for automatic dismissal of criminal charges on completion of program’s educational classes because Subsec. provides that defendant “may apply”, and “satisfactory compliance” necessarily requires that the court retain at least some discretion to determine if defendant has met conditions of program. 116 CA 788.