Sec. 51-164x. Review of order prohibiting attendance at court session; review of certain orders sealing or limiting disclosure to court documents, affidavits or files. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 51-164x. Review of order prohibiting attendance at court session; review of certain orders sealing or limiting disclosure to court documents, affidavits or files. (a) Any person affected by a court order which prohibits any person from attending any session of court, except any session of court conducted pursuant to section 46b-11, 46b-49, 46b-122 or 54-76h or any other provision of the general statutes under which the court is authorized to close proceedings, whether at a pretrial or trial stage, shall have the right to the review of such order by the filing of a petition for review with the Appellate Court within seventy-two hours from the issuance of such court order.

      (b) No order subject to review pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be effective until seventy-two hours after it has been issued, and the timely filing of any petition for review shall stay the order.

      (c) Any person affected by a court order that seals or limits the disclosure of any files, affidavits, documents or other material on file with the court or filed in connection with a court proceeding, except (1) any order issued pursuant to section 46b-11 or 54-33c or any other provision of the general statutes under which the court is authorized to seal or limit the disclosure of files, affidavits, documents or materials, whether at a pretrial or trial stage, and (2) any order issued pursuant to a court rule that seals or limits the disclosure of any affidavit in support of an arrest warrant, shall have the right to the review of such order by the filing of a petition for review with the Appellate Court within seventy-two hours from the issuance of such court order.

      (d) The Appellate Court shall provide an expedited hearing on such petitions filed pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) of this section in accordance with such rules as the judges of the Appellate Court may adopt, consistent with the rights of the petitioner and the parties to the case.

      (P.A. 80-234, S. 1; P.A. 81-89; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 39, 82; P.A. 97-178, S. 1.)

      History: P.A. 81-89 exempted any session of court conducted pursuant to Sec. 46b-11, 46b-49, 46b-122 or 54-76h or any other provision under which court is authorized to close proceedings, and added provision that petition for review shall be filed within 72 hours from issuance of court order and specified that the appellate session of the superior court shall provide hearing in accordance with rules adopted by judges of the superior court; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to appellate session of the superior court and added reference to appellate court; P.A. 97-178 amended Subsec. (a) by changing right to "appeal" order to right to "the review of" order, amended Subsec. (b) by changing reference to "such order" to "order subject to review pursuant to subsection (a) of this section" and by requiring "timely" filing of petition, and added Subsec. (c) re review of orders sealing or limiting disclosure of files, affidavits, documents or other material on file with the court and exceptions and amended Subsec. (d), formerly Subsec. (c), re expedited hearing on petitions filed pursuant to Subsecs. (a) and (c).

      Cited. 208 C. 365. Cited. 222 C. 331. Cited. 230 C. 441. Cited. 233 C. 44. Cited. 237 C. 339. Cited. 240 C. 623.

      Cited. 18 CA 273. Cited. 23 CA 433. Cited. 26 CA 758. Cited. 43 CA 851. Cited. 45 CA 142. Section does not provide expedited review of protective order issued pursuant to Sec. 13-5 of the Practice Book. 51 CA 287. Confers jurisdiction for court to review order permitting use of pseudonyms regardless of whether the order is separate or connected to an order sealing a file or any portion thereof. Subsec. (c) provides court with jurisdiction to review a court order that limits disclosure of any material on file. Defendants' names are "material on file" and omitting those names and permitting them to be replaced with pseudonyms constitutes limiting their disclosure. Whole purpose of statute is to afford expedited review of a court order that limits disclosure, and its express provisions do not contain an exception for nondisclosure of the identity of others. 96 CA 399.

      Order for closure too broad where included presentation of evidence on newspaper circulation, prior publicity and publishing policies. 37 CS 627. Cited. Id., 705. Cited. 38 CS 546.

      Subsec. (a):

      Cited. 229 C. 178.