CT Gen Stat § 53-39a (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 53 - Crimes|Chapter 939 - Offenses Against the Person|Section 53-39a - Indemnification of law enforcement unit members, certain special police and inspectors in the Division of Criminal Justice.

 Whenever, in any prosecution of any member of a law enforcement unit, as defined in section 7-294a, any person appointed under section 29-18 as a special policeman for the State Capitol building and grounds, the Legislative Office Building and parking garage and related structures and facilities, and other areas under the supervision and control of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management, or any inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice for a crime allegedly committed by such member, person or inspector in the course of duty, the charge is dismissed or the member, person or inspector found not guilty, such member, person or inspector shall be indemnified by such member's, person's or inspector's employing governmental unit for economic loss sustained by such member, person or inspector as a result of such prosecution, including the payment of attorney's fees and costs incurred during the prosecution and the enforcement of this section. Such member, person or inspector may bring an action in the Superior Court against such employing governmental unit to enforce the provisions of this section.(P.A. 73-627; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 610; P.A. 80-33, S. 2, 3; P.A. 84-48, S. 16, 17; P.A. 89-82, S. 10, 11; P.A. 96-219, S. 9; P.A. 03-97, S. 2; P.A. 10-68, S. 1; P.A. 11-51, S. 134; P.A. 17-87, S. 3.)History: P.A. 77-614 made state police department a division within the department of public safety, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-33 applied provisions to members of the office of capitol security and persons appointed as special policemen for state capitol building and grounds; P.A. 84-48 included reference to special policemen for other areas under the supervision and control of the joint committee on legislative management; P.A. 89-82 expanded reference to state capitol building and grounds to include legislative office building and parking garage and related structures and facilities; P.A. 96-219 changed the name of the “Office of State Capitol Security” to the “Office of State Capitol Police”; P.A. 03-97 added provision re action in Superior Court against employing governmental unit to enforce provisions of section, effective June 3, 2003; P.A. 10-68 replaced provision re legal fees necessarily incurred with provision re attorney's fees and costs incurred during prosecution and enforcement of section; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Department of Public Safety” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 17-87 added references to inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice and made technical changes.Indemnification for attorney's fees sustained “as a result of such prosecution” does not authorize recovery of such fees sustained as a result of separate action to enforce right to indemnification under section. 186 C. 623. Court will not interpret section “to encompass indemnity for any and all criminal prosecutions of police officers for sexual assault”. 206 C. 100. Cited. 229 C. 479; 234 C. 539. Court concluded that entry of a nolle plus the passage of 13 months, which results in automatic erasure of relevant records under Sec. 54-142a, constitutes a dismissal for purposes of this section. 240 C. 590. Section waives state's sovereign immunity from suit. 258 C. 680. Although section waives immunity from liability, it does not waive immunity from suit. 263 C. 74. Police officer was entitled to recover losses from the date of the incident that led to the police investigation; employer's prearrest liability attaches only when there is a clear nexus between the economic losses and the prosecution, and section only provides for indemnification for such prearrest economic losses that are incurred by a police officer as a result of, or in anticipation of, an unwarranted police investigation or criminal prosecution that actually occurs, or that are precipitated by employer's adverse action against the officer that was taken in response to that employer's discovery of a police investigation or criminal prosecution; “economic loss” includes lost leave time attributable to a criminal prosecution. 300 C. 708. Plaintiff not required to exhaust administrative remedies under collective bargaining agreement prior to seeking indemnification; plaintiff entitled to recover for lost wages and lost employment benefits that have clear nexus to criminal prosecution; plaintiff entitled to recover economic loss during suspension resulting from defendant's administrative proceedings since suspension was because of defendant's arrest. 303 C. 1. Legislature has acquiesced in the courts' use of workers' compensation principles for interpreting the meaning of the phrase “in the course of his duty” in section. 326 C. 708.Cited. 25 CA 599; 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590. In applying 3-part test set forth in 25 CA 599 to determine whether conduct will be found to have occurred “in the course of his duty”, court found that since the charged crimes filed by the state against plaintiff police officer alleged that he was an active participant in an illegal drug trafficking enterprise, such illegal activities cannot be said to be fulfilling duties of a police officer or something incidental to it and are incompatible with duties of a police officer; plaintiff failed to satisfy burden of proving that he was entitled to economic indemnification under statute and court properly rendered judgment in favor of the city. 94 CA 445. Review of text of section and its relationship to other statutes does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that a claim of indemnification by a member of a university's special police force falls within the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity provided under section. 189 CA 540.