When police protection is necessary or required at any boxing bout or wrestling match, place of public amusement, sport contest or hockey, baseball or basketball game, or any other exhibition or contest, which is being held or is to be held in any municipality, the amount of such protection necessary shall be determined and shall be furnished by (1) the chief or superintendent of the police department in any municipality having an organized or paid police department or (2) the commanding officer of the state police troop having jurisdiction over the municipality in any municipality having a resident state trooper. Any such protection shall be paid for by the person or persons operating, conducting or promoting such game, exhibition or contest.
(1949 Rev., S. 704; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 610; P.A. 82-193, S. 1, 3; P.A. 85-21.)
History: P.A. 77-614 substituted division of state police within the department of public safety for state police department, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 82-193 clarified provisions dealing with the determination and provision of police protection at places of amusement and added Subsec. (b) dealing with traffic control at certain pari-mutuel facilities; P.A. 85-21 deleted former Subsec. (b), which had permitted associations licensed under chapter 226 which conduct jai alai or racing to employ persons to control traffic near pari-mutuel facilities.
Cited. 213 C. 269. Section was applied to plaintiff in a manner consistent with first amendment. 236 C. 781.
Although “shall” can connote a mandatory command, the language of statute read as a whole involves discretionary acts and does not create a ministerial duty to furnish police protection. 138 CA 40.
Inapplicable to restaurants and dances at restaurants. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 631.
Notes of Decisions
Morascini v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 675 A.2d 1340 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 86× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that General Statutes § 7-284 1 is unconstitutional as applied to a rap music concert at the plaintiffs nightclub and as it would apply thereafter to concerts and other forms of expressive conduct.”
Mills v. Solution, LLC, 50 A.3d 381 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 38× “1 She claims that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to (1) whether the city, Handy and Arm-eno (municipal defendants) 2 had qualified immunity because (a) General Statutes § 7-284 imposes a ministerial duty to provide police…”
Town of Plainfield v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 567 A.2d 379 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 12× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff town of Plainfield, when it furnished police protection pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, 1 provided a taxable service under General Statutes § 12-407 (2) (i) (E) 2 and § 12-426-27 (b) (5) of the Regulations of…”
Genesky v. Town of East Lyme, 881 A.2d 114 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the cases do not indicate whether the alleged police departments were established under city charter provisions that were adopted prior to the enactment of §§ 7-284 and 7-433c. See footnote 16 of this opinion.”
Cimino v. Yale Univ., 638 F. Supp. 952 (D. Conn. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 7-284 as amended provides: When police protection is necessary or required at any boxing bout or wrestling match, place of public amusement, sport contest or hockey, baseball or basketball game, or any other exhibition or contest, which is being held or is to be…”
City of West Haven v. Dean, 292 A.2d 263 (Conn. App. Ct. 1971).
· cites it 6× “The city claims that it is entitled to collect this amount because of § 7-284 of the General Statutes. 1 The trial court found the issues for the plaintiff to recover of the defendant corporation $1956.”
Coley v. Hartford, No. SC19129 (Conn. June 10, 2014).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 7-284 provides in rele- vant part that ‘‘[w]hen police protection is necessary or required at any .”
Groton v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., No. SC19347 (Conn. June 30, 2015).
· cites it 3× “In Plainfield, we emphasized that the nature of the task at issue, namely, the provision of police officers to provide security at the dog racing track, was ‘‘private,’’ insofar as the legislature mandated the track pay for those services under § 7-284.”
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.