Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 961 — Trial and Proceedings after Conviction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-102m (2025)

DNA Data Bank Oversight Panel

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) There is established a DNA Data Bank Oversight Panel composed of the Chief State's Attorney, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, the Commissioner of Correction, the executive director of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department and the Chief Public Defender, or their designees. The Chief State's Attorney shall serve as chairperson of the panel and shall coordinate the agencies responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the DNA data bank established pursuant to section 54-102j.

(b) The panel shall take such action as necessary to assure the integrity of the data bank including the destruction of inappropriately obtained samples and the purging of all records and identifiable information pertaining to the persons from whom such inappropriately obtained samples were collected.

(c) The panel shall meet on a quarterly basis and shall maintain records of its meetings. Such records shall be retained by the chairperson. The meetings and records of the panel shall be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as defined in section 1-200, except that discussions and records of personally identifiable DNA information contained in the data bank shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The Chief Public Defender, or the Chief Public Defender's designee, shall not participate in discussions concerning, or have access to records of, personally identifiable DNA information contained in the data bank.

(P.A. 03-242, S. 5; P.A. 04-188, S. 3; P.A. 10-102, S. 4; P.A. 11-9, S. 1; 11-51, S. 134.)

History: P.A. 04-188 amended Subsec. (c) to add provision that the meetings and records of the panel shall be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, except that discussions and records of personally identifiable DNA information contained in the data bank shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to that act; P.A. 10-102 amended Subsec. (a) to add executive director of Court Support Services Division as member of panel; P.A. 11-9 amended Subsec. (a) to add Chief Public Defender as member of panel and amended Subsec. (c) to prohibit Chief Public Defender or designee from participating in discussions concerning, or having access to records of, personally identifiable DNA information contained in data bank, effective May 24, 2011; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Commissioner of Public Safety” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection” in Subsec. (a), effective July 1, 2011.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 54-102n to 54-102q. Reserved for future use.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: State v. Banks, 146 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Banks, 146 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the statutory scheme contains provisions that: outline penalties for misuse of information in the DNA data bank; General Statutes § 54-102k ; provide for the destruction of DNA data bank information upon a person's exoneration; General Statutes § 54-102l ; and create a…”
State v. Banks, 71 A.3d 582 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “The DNA data bank legislation now has provisions for collecting the DNA samples; see General Statutes § 54-102h; conducting DNA analysis; see General Statutes § 54-102i; disseminating information in the DNA data bank; see General Statutes § 54-102j; penalizing the unauthorized…”
State v. Sharpe (Concurrence & Dissent), No. SC20815 (Conn. Oct. 7, 2025). “If the majority is correct that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s ‘‘discarded’’ (the majority’s euphemism for ‘‘abandoned’’) DNA, why would the legislature explicitly require the deletion of the DNA records, including both the samples and profiles, of those…”
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.