Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142c (2026)

Disclosure of erased records

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of erased records by the Chief Court Administrator or any criminal justice agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone the existence of such erased records or information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this part, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, not later than two years from the date on which the records of any case are erased, the clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of erased records by the Chief Court Administrator or any criminal justice agency having information contained in such erased records may disclose to the victim of a crime or the victim's legal representative the fact that the case was dismissed. If such disclosure contains information from erased records, the identity of the defendant or defendants shall not be released, except that any information contained in such records, including the identity of the person charged may be released to the victim of the crime or the victim's representative upon written application by such victim or representative to the court stating (1) that a civil action has been commenced for loss or damage resulting from such act, (2) the intent to bring a civil action for such loss or damage, (3) that a civil action has been commenced pursuant to section 53a-28a for enforcement of an order of financial restitution, or (4) the intent to bring a civil action pursuant to section 53a-28a for an order of financial restitution. Any person who obtains criminal history record information by falsely representing to be the victim of a crime or the victim's representative shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(P.A. 78-200, S. 15; P.A. 81-117; 81-218, S. 2; P.A. 88-278, S. 3, 4; P.A. 99-277, S. 2; P.A. 00-196, S. 43; P.A. 03-19, S. 128; P.A. 13-258, S. 119; P.A. 22-26, S. 35.)

History: P.A. 81-117 added Subsec. (b) re release of information contained in erased records to crime victim or his legal representative; P.A. 81-218 prohibited disclosure of information re any charge erased under part I, rather than part II, of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in chapter; P.A. 88-278 amended Subsec. (b) to permit information and identity of person contained in erased records to be released to victim upon written application stating civil action has been commenced or intent to bring civil action; P.A. 99-277 amended Subsec. (b) by changing “one year” to “two years” from the date of disposition of the case and making technical changes; P.A. 00-196 made a technical change in Subsec. (b); P.A. 03-19 made technical changes in Subsec. (a), effective May 12, 2003; P.A. 13-258 amended Subsec. (b) to change penalty from fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not less than 1 year or more than 5 years to a class D felony; P.A. 22-26 amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “within two years from the date of disposition of any case” with “not later than two years from the date on which the records of any case are erased”, adding Subdivs. (3) and (4) re release of information to victim or representative for civil action relating to restitution pursuant to Sec. 53a-28a and making technical changes, effective January 1, 2023.

Cited. 183 C. 183; 200 C. 440; 237 C. 339. This section and Sec. 54-142a do not categorically preclude the state from seeking to establish basis for sentence enhancement by use of evidence other than erased records. 319 C. 494.

Cited. 20 CA 737; 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Cislo v. City of Shelton, 673 A.2d 134 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cislo v. City of Shelton, 673 A.2d 134 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 5× “As previously noted; see footnote 5; § 54-142g is applicable to General Statutes § 54-142c. Section 54-142c is one of the statutes covering erasure.”

Ruggiero v. Fuessenich, 676 A.2d 1367 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 4× “ain *343 tiffs claimed, however, that they were entitled to the requested records because: (1) subsection (g) of § 54-142a is an exception to subsection (a) that prevents the erasure of records relating to a criminal prosecution if a defendant is found guilty under one count of…”

State v. Morowitz, 512 A.2d 175 (Conn. 1986). “The circumstance that the prosecutor in this case happened to know of the prior victim because of his contact with the earlier case in an official capacity does not bring his calling her as a witness in the present case within the prohibition of § 54-142c. Accordingly, I agree…”

State v. Hayes, 570 A.2d 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). “See General Statutes § 54-142a (f) and (g), and § 54-142c (b). Such erasure does not, however, necessarily create a shield that is impermeable to a claim of constitutional deprivation.”

Cloukey v. Leuba, 788 A.2d 1275 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 2 General Statutes § 54-142c (a) provides in relevant part: “The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of erased records by the Chief Court Administrator or any criminal justice agency having information contained in such erased records shall not…”

State v. Apt (Conn. 2015). · cites it 3× “We also reject the defendant’s contention that, on remand, the state should be precluded from pursuing a new hearing on the sentence enhancement issue because the admission of any evidence concerning the defendant’s pretrial release status would violate Gen- eral Statutes §…”

State v. Apt (Conn. 2015). “The statute was not intended to obliterate the memories of persons having knowledge of the events that led to the previous aborted prosecution. The circumstance that the prosecutor in this case happened to know of the prior victim because of his contact with the earlier case in…”

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.