The Commissioner of Correction shall administer, coordinate and control the operations of the department and shall be responsible for the overall supervision and direction of all institutions, facilities and activities of the department. The commissioner shall establish rules for the administrative practices and custodial and rehabilitative methods of said institutions and facilities in accordance with recognized correctional standards. The commissioner shall establish, develop and maintain noninstitutional, community-based service programs. The commissioner shall be responsible for the supervision of persons released on parole by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The commissioner shall be responsible for establishing disciplinary, diagnostic, classification, treatment, vocational and academic education, research and statistics, training and development services and programs throughout the department. Subject to the provisions of chapter 67, the commissioner shall appoint such professional, technical and other personnel as may be necessary for the efficient operation of the department. The commissioner shall organize and operate interinstitutional programs for the development and training of institution and facility staffs. The commissioner shall provide for the services of such chaplains as are necessary to minister to the needs of the inmates of department institutions and facilities. The commissioner shall, within available appropriations for such purpose, arrange for provision of legal assistance of a civil nature to indigent inmates of department institutions and facilities and legal representation for such inmates before administrative boards where permitted or constitutionally required.
(1967, P.A. 152, S. 5; P.A. 77-24; 77-526, S. 1, 2; 77-614, S. 271, 610; P.A. 80-200, S. 2, 7; P.A. 93-219, S. 9, 14; P.A. 04-234, S. 2, 33; P.A. 13-164, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 77-24 allowed commissioner to appoint designees to act for him; P.A. 77-526 added commissioner's duty to arrange for legal assistance for indigent inmates; P.A. 77-614 deleted reference to consultation with council of correction in establishing rules, effective July 1, 1979; P.A. 80-200 required commissioner to establish, develop and maintain noninstitutional, community-based service programs; P.A. 93-219 deleted responsibility of commissioner to supervise parolees and act as administrator of the interstate compact for parole and probation supervision, reflecting transfer of said responsibilities to board of parole, effective July 1, 1994; P.A. 04-234 added provision requiring commissioner to be responsible for the supervision of persons released on parole and to act as administrator of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality, effective June 8, 2004, and replaced Board of Parole with Board of Pardons and Paroles, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 13-164 deleted provision requiring commissioner to act as administrator of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, effective July 1, 2013.
See Secs. 20-14h to 20-14j, inclusive, re administration of medication in day and residential programs and facilities.
The statutory mechanism by which the department imposes sanctions is intended by the legislature to be civil in nature. 168 CA 19.
Commissioner's extremely broad discretion under section must be accommodated with rule that prisoner retains basic constitutional rights; habeas corpus provides only practical access of prisoner to courts. 34 CS 89.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Beasley v. Comm'r of Corr., 718 A.2d 487 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
Beasley v. Comm'r of Corr., 718 A.2d 487 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 7× “During the habeas proceeding, the commissioner testified, and the court found, that his authority is established pursuant to General Statutes § 18-81. 4 Pursuant to this authority, the commissioner has promulgated a *425 set of directives, which are written guidelines pertaining…”
Pierce v. Lantz, 965 A.2d 576 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 8× “General Statutes § 18-81 empowers the commissioner to create such administrative directives for the administration and operation of the correctional institutions.”
Beasley v. Comm'r of Corr., 733 A.2d 833 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “to 1993) § 18-7a (c) 1 and General Statutes § 18-81. 2 The petitioners filed separate habeas corpus petitions, which the *501 trial court consolidated for trial and then dismissed on their merits.”
Lareau v. Manson, 507 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Conn. 1980).
· cites it 4× “” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 18-81 (emphasis added). There may be no absolute prescription of “one man, one cell” in the Eighth Amendment.”
Martinez v. Comm'r of Corr., 936 A.2d 665 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “; see General Statutes § 18-81 (discussing respondent’s duties).”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996).
“State Agencies § 18-81-28 (c), see footnote 7; shall be subject to being read either on a targeted or random basis “if the Commissioner [of Correction] or the Unit Administrator has reason to believe that such reading is generally necessary to further the substantial interests…”
Vandever v. Comm'r of Corr., 42 A.3d 494 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 5× “A prisoner’s liberty interest to be free from disciplinary segregation is not inherent in the due process clause of the federal constitution. Harris v.”
Dukuly v. Warden, 377 A.2d 1344 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1977).
“Petitions have been brought seeking to enjoin alleged violations of various constitutional and human rights by prison authorities.”
Jones v. Manson, 393 F. Supp. 1016 (D. Conn. 1975).
· cites it 4× “I do not reach this conclusion without some hesitancy, because the commissioner’s actions in delaying the plaintiff’s hearing for a two-month period did not meet the normally high standards of judgment which this court has come to expect of the defendant.”
Hock v. Thipedeau, 238 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Correction is required by Connecticut General Statutes § 18-81 to “establish rules for the administrative practices .”
Jones v. Schortman (D. Conn. 2023).
· cites it 6× “(7) Plaintiff also purports to bring claims through the following state civil statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-81 , Conn. Gen. Stat.”
Gawlik v. Semple (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 5× “It reasoned that the administrative directive at issue represented a perfectly legitimate intra-agency interpretation and application of existing regulatory authority conferred on the department and its commis- sioner by General Statutes § 18-81 and various regula- tions…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.