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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-1o (2025)

Electronic recording of custodial interrogations

✓ 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) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Custody” means the circumstance when (A) a person has been placed under formal arrest, or (B) there is a restraint on a person's freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest and a reasonable person, in view of all the circumstances, would have believed that he or she was not free to leave;

(2) “Interrogation” means questioning initiated by a law enforcement official or any words or actions on the part of a law enforcement official, other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that such official should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the person;

(3) “Custodial interrogation” means any interrogation of a person while such person is in custody;

(4) “Place of detention” means a police station or barracks, courthouse, correctional facility, community correctional center or detention facility; and

(5) “Electronic recording” means an audiovisual recording made by use of an electronic or digital audiovisual device.

(b) An oral, written or sign language statement of a person under investigation for or accused of a capital felony or a class A or B felony made as a result of a custodial interrogation at a place of detention shall be presumed to be inadmissible as evidence against the person in any criminal proceeding unless: (1) An electronic recording is made of the custodial interrogation, and (2) such recording is substantially accurate and not intentionally altered.

(c) Every electronic recording required under this section shall be preserved until such time as the person's conviction for any offense relating to the statement is final and all direct and habeas corpus appeals are exhausted or the prosecution is barred by law.

(d) If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of this section, then any statements made by the person during or following that nonrecorded custodial interrogation, even if otherwise in compliance with this section, are presumed to be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding against the person except for the purposes of impeachment.

(e) Nothing in this section precludes the admission of:

(1) A statement made by the person in open court at his or her trial or at a preliminary hearing;

(2) A statement made during a custodial interrogation that was not recorded as required by this section because electronic recording was not feasible;

(3) A voluntary statement, whether or not the result of a custodial interrogation, that has a bearing on the credibility of the person as a witness;

(4) A spontaneous statement that is not made in response to a question;

(5) A statement made after questioning that is routinely asked during the processing of the arrest of the person;

(6) A statement made during a custodial interrogation by a person who requests, prior to making the statement, to respond to the interrogator's questions only if an electronic recording is not made of the statement, provided an electronic recording is made of the statement by the person agreeing to respond to the interrogator's question only if a recording is not made of the statement;

(7) A statement made during a custodial interrogation that is conducted out-of-state; and

(8) Any other statement that may be admissible under law.

(f) The state shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of the exceptions specified in subsection (e) of this section is applicable.

(g) Nothing in this section precludes the admission of a statement, otherwise inadmissible under this section, that is used only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence.

(h) The presumption of inadmissibility of a statement made by a person at a custodial interrogation at a place of detention may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances.

(i) Any electronic recording of any statement made by a person at a custodial interrogation that is made by any law enforcement agency under this section shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as defined in section 1-200, and the information shall not be transmitted to any person except as needed to comply with this section.

(P.A. 11-174, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 11-174 effective January 1, 2014.

Subsec. (h): “Voluntary” is a constitutional term of art in context of admission of statement made by criminal defendant subject to custodial interrogation in place of detention, therefore, trial court's legal determination of voluntariness is not entitled to deference upon review; requirement that state prove unrecorded statement is reliable is not constitutional but evidentiary, therefore, principles governing evidentiary rulings apply upon review; independent, corroborating evidence not required to prove reliability of statement made by criminal defendant subject to custodial interrogation in place of detention. 338 C. 255.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: State v. Christopher S., 257 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Christopher S., 257 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 64× “Under subsection (h) of the statute, the state may overcome the presumption of inadmissibility in any case by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement ‘‘was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances.”
State v. Flores, 281 A.3d 420 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 14× “On appeal, he claims that (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress his written statement to the police, who failed to comply with the requirements of General Statutes § 54-1o, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the entirety of the…”
State v. Garrison, 278 A.3d 1085 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 4× “The defendant also claims on appeal that the court improperly denied his motion seeking dismissal of the case against him or other forms of relief because the prosecution had failed to timely disclose certain material evidence to the defense.”
State v. Tony M., 332 Conn. 810 (2019). · cites it 18× “Second, he claims that evidence regarding his statements was also inadmissible because the interview was not recorded, as required by General Statutes § 54-1o. Third, he claims that the trial court improperly precluded him from introducing into evidence a letter in which he…”
State v. Spring, 199 A.3d 1079 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 6× “Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's determination that the state met its burden of proving that the defendant's statement obtained during a custodial interrogation, which was not recorded in accordance with General Statutes § 54-1o, was nonetheless…”
State v. Flores (Concurrence), No. SC20512 (Conn. Sept. 20, 2022). · cites it 30× “I agree with part I of the majority opinion, in which the majority determines that the trial court correctly concluded, under the current framework set forth in General Statutes § 54-1o, that the state established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s statement…”
State v. Christopher S., No. SC20247 (Conn. Sept. 21, 2021). · cites it 21× “I agree with the majority that the state met its burden under General Statutes § 54-1o (h) in the present case and, therefore, that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed.”
State v. Garrison, 332 A.3d 296 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “‘‘In June, 2018, the defendant visited his close friend, Timothy Murphy, and Murphy’s cousin, William Patten, who lived together in an apartment located in Vernon.”
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr., No. SC19079 (Conn. Apr. 21, 2015). · cites it 2× “11-174), codified at General Statutes § 54-1o, which mandates that all custodial interrogations of persons suspected of commit- ting certain enumerated felonies be electronically recorded.”
State v. Franqui, 354 A.3d 201 (Conn. 2026). “93, 109 , 113–14, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) (declining to exercise supervisory authority to extend rule from jailhouse confessions to require special credibility instruction “whenever a witness is in a position to receive a benefit from the government” in part because trial court’s…”
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.