Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 959 — Court Jurisdiction and Power
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-1c (2025)

Admissibility of confession

✓ 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
Any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, obtained from an accused person who has not been presented to the first session of the court, or on the day specified for arraignment under the provisions of section 54-1g, or who has not been informed of such person's rights as provided by section 54-1b or 54-64b, shall be inadmissible.

(1963, P.A. 126, S. 3; February, 1965, P.A. 436, S. 2; P.A. 76-336, S. 2; P.A. 80-313, S. 28; P.A. 03-19, S. 127.)

History: 1965 act added “or on the day specified in ... section 54-1b”; P.A. 76-336 substituted day “for arraignment under the provisions of section 54-63c” for day specified “in subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of section 54-1b”; P.A. 80-313 added reference to Sec. 54-64b and substituted reference to Sec. 54-1g for reference to Sec. 54-63c; P.A. 03-19 made technical changes, effective May 12, 2003.

Proof of voluntariness of confession prerequisite to its admissibility if made during illegal detention. 151 C. 246, see 371 U.S. 471. Cited. 154 C. 314, 321; 155 C. 124, 133. Confession inadmissible as defendant was not advised he could have a lawyer's services prior to interrogation and that he had right to stop answering questions at any time. 157 C. 384. Cited. 164 C. 402. Admission into evidence of custodial statements not violation of section. 167 C. 408. Cited. 187 C. 6. Exclusionary effects of this statute do not apply to violations of Sec. 54-63c. 195 C. 505. Cited. 236 C. 388; 240 C. 205. Section not applicable to suppress a statement that was elicited from accused before expiration of the first court session when his presentment still would have been timely; legislature's use of past tense in the phrase “has not been presented” evinces an intent that the violation of not presenting the accused person to the court in a timely manner already must have occurred when the statement is obtained in order for section to apply; section was intended to embody federal rules in effect when section was enacted in 1963. 317 C. 1.

Cited. 11 CA 238; 37 CA 252; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 388; 43 CA 209; 44 CA 162. Section renders inadmissible any admission, confession or statement given by an accused person who remains in state custody after the time at which he should have been presented in court; section does not invalidate all statements made by defendant prior to that time due to later, unrelated wrongdoing by the police in prolonging the period of his pre-presentment detention. 145 CA 547; judgment affirmed, see 317 C. 1.

Cited. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 573; 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 346; 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 35, 40.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1966–2015 · leading case: State v. Falby, 444 A.2d 213 (Conn. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Falby, 444 A.2d 213 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 4× “First, the defendant objects that since he received no Miranda warnings from a judge of the Court of Common Pleas on the occasion of his June 10 warrantless burglary arrest as required by General Statutes § 54-1b, all subsequent confessions are barred by General Statutes §…”
State v. Piorkowski, 700 A.2d 1146 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 3× “Any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, obtained from an accused person who has not been presented to the first session of the court, or on the day specified for arraignment under the provisions of section 54-1g, or who has not been informed of his rights as…”
State v. Piorkowski, 672 A.2d 921 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “With respect to the October 21 statement, the defendant asserted in his motion that it was: (1) obtained without a valid waiver of his Miranda 7 rights; and (2) a product of a violation of his right to a prompt arraignment under General Statutes §§ 54-1c and 54-1g. 8 With…”
State v. Grimes, 228 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1966). · cites it 2× “Significantly, at no time was any claim made in the trial court that the letter contained any admissions or statements inadmissible under General Statutes § 54-1c because the defendant had not been warned of his rights.”
State v. Crespo, No. SC19242 (Conn. May 19, 2015). · cites it 30× “The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether General Statutes § 54-1c,1 which ren- ders inadmissible ‘‘[a]ny .”
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.