Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Connecticut charges incarcerated people up to $347 a day and can collect the debt for 20 years after release, including from settlements and inheritances. A 2026 investigation found the state collected about $21 million this way since 2020.
Claim in dispute
Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
This case classifies public positions on one question: should Connecticut be allowed to collect the cost of a person's incarceration from money they receive after release, including legal settlements, inheritances and lottery winnings, for up to 20 years after release? It does not classify whether any individual's specific debt calculation was correct, and it is not about prison funding or incarceration policy in general.
Connecticut has charged incarcerated people a per diem fee for the cost of their confinement since 1995. Under the current statute, the Department of Correction and the Department of Administrative Services, the state's collection agency, carry out the debt collection (opens in a new tab). A 2022 legislative research report (opens in a new tab) describes the mechanics: the state can place a lien against a lawsuit judgment or an inheritance for the full cost of incarceration or 50 percent of the proceeds, whichever is less, and can place a lien against a deceased person's estate for the full cost of incarceration, for up to 20 years after release. A 2022 amendment, Public Act 22-118, exempted the first $50,000 of most people's assets and limited the lawsuit-proceeds lien to a list of serious offenses, effective May 7, 2022.
A Connecticut Mirror investigation published September 27, 2026 (opens in a new tab) found the state has charged as much as $347 per day, producing a debt of nearly $127,000 for a year in prison, more than double the federal government's rate. Reviewing hundreds of probate-court cases from 2020 to 2026, the paper found the state collected about $21 million from hundreds of formerly incarcerated people in that period, including money from medical-malpractice, police-brutality, workplace-injury and wrongful-death settlements, and that about 72 percent of the liens the state filed in that period yielded nothing because the underlying estates had nothing left to collect.
State officials have described the debt as a lawful, long-standing collection duty rather than argued for its fairness on the merits. Eleanor Michael, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Administrative Services, said her agency implements the law and is "not involved in the policy discussion." Attorney General William Tong's office said it is required to assist DAS in debt collection "if the statutory criteria and facts of each case warrant it." When the law passed in 1995, its sponsors framed the fee as a matter of fairness to taxpayers; Sen. John Kissel, a co-sponsor still in the legislature, told the Associated Press in 2022 (opens in a new tab) that "knowing that one has to pay the state back a reasonable sum on a regular basis is not a bad policy."
Advocates, an attorney and several people pursued for the debt have condemned the practice. Dan Barrett, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the debt "builds so quickly that you can reach astronomical numbers within a comparatively short amount of time." Lisa Foster, co-founder of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, called the law "a regressive tax." The ACLU of Connecticut and formerly incarcerated plaintiffs sued Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General Tong in March 2022, arguing the law violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. The state withdrew its demand to collect from all four plaintiffs by October 2024 (opens in a new tab), though collection from others has continued.
Connecticut's legislature considered a full repeal in 2022 but instead narrowed the law through Public Act 22-118; the Connecticut Mirror reported lawmakers made further, smaller changes in 2026 reporting on a 2024 follow-up bill, though the specific text of that later change could not be independently confirmed here. Rep. Steve Stafstrom, who sponsored the repeal effort, said the 2022 changes meant about 98 percent of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out. The Connecticut Mirror's 2026 reporting found the state is still pursuing hundreds of people a year for the remaining debt, including through settlements in wrongful-death and police cases.
People in this case
William TongDirectly involved
Ned LamontDirectly involved
Timeline
7 timeline entries on this page. Dates: June 1, 1995 to September 27, 2026
June 1995
1 event
Connecticut enacts law charging inmates for the cost of incarceration
State legislators passed a law directing the Department of Correction to assess a daily cost-of-incarceration fee against people in its custody. Sponsors said the goal was to help offset the state's prison costs and hold people accountable for the cost of their crimes.
[01]They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Source excerpt
The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison.
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
9783 days between recorded events
March 2022
1 event
ACLU of Connecticut sues over the cost-of-incarceration law
Claim
The ACLU of Connecticut and formerly incarcerated plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Michael Llorens sued Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong in federal court, arguing the law's collection of settlements, inheritances and other windfalls violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
54 days between recorded events
May 2022
1 event
Public Act 22-118 narrows the law's reach
A 2022 amendment took effect exempting the first $50,000 of most formerly incarcerated people's assets from collection and limiting the state's lien on lawsuit proceeds to a list of the most serious offenses.
[03]Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)
Source excerpt
A new law additionally exempts up to $50,000 of an inmate’s other assets except those for inmates incarcerated for capital felony or murder with special circumstances, felony murder, 1st and 2nd degree sexual assault, 1st degree aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault of a minor (PA 22-118, §§ 457-458, effective upon passage
Nonpartisan Connecticut General Assembly research report summarizing the state's cost-of-incarceration statutes (CGS SS 18-85a, 18-85b and 18-85c) and the 2022 amendments made by Public Act 22-118, including the $50,000 asset exemption, the narrowed lawsuit-proceeds lien and the 20-year collection windows for lawsuit proceeds, inheritances and estates.
Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)Full report, including the "Property Subject to the State's Claim," "Lawsuit Proceeds" and "Inheritance" sections
303 days between recorded events
March 2023
1 event
Federal court allows Beatty's lawsuit to proceed against new defendants
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that Teresa Beatty could continue her lawsuit against the cost-of-incarceration law, but only after substituting a different set of state defendants.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
45 days between recorded events
April 2023
1 event
Two more plaintiffs join the federal lawsuit
Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson joined Beatty v. Lamont as plaintiffs, adding claims that the state sought part of a wrongful-death settlement and inherited family property to satisfy their incarceration debts.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
530 days between recorded events
October 2024
1 event
State withdraws its claims against the Beatty v. Lamont plaintiffs
Reaction
By October 2024, the state had withdrawn its demand to collect incarceration debt from all four plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, and the ACLU of Connecticut said the case ended in a win for its clients.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
726 days between recorded events
September 2026
1 event
Connecticut Mirror publishes investigation into the cost-of-incarceration law
Source release
An investigation found Connecticut has charged as much as $347 a day for incarceration, collected about $21 million from formerly incarcerated people from 2020 to mid-2026, and continued to pursue the debt from legal settlements despite two rounds of legislative changes.
[01]They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Source excerpt
The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison.
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
ACLU of Connecticut
Sources (1)
- Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
Disputed claim
Under the law as revised in 2022, about 98 percent of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out.
Sources (1)
Disputed claim
The Attorney General's office is required to assist the Department of Administrative Services in collecting prison debts if the statutory criteria and facts of each case warrant it.
Sources (1)
- They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 8. Dates: August 27, 2022 to September 27, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
6 responses on this page
Tracy DeSenti "I still can't wrap my head around losing the thing that I worked for"
Open source (opens in a new tab)They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Read more
DeSenti, who had to sell the home she and her late husband had renovated together to help satisfy the debt the state assessed for his earlier incarceration, said she still cannot process losing what she worked for.
Role at the time: Hamden resident
Before the statement
The state pursued a lien against Billy DeSenti's estate for $232,733 in incarceration debt after his death in 2023, and Tracy DeSenti had to sell the North Branford home they had renovated together to help satisfy roughly $21,000 of that debt.
After the statement
She now rents a home in Hamden with her three sons and is studying to become a probation officer.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
DeSenti directly objects to losing her home to satisfy the state's incarceration debt, describing the loss as something she still cannot accept.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Alex Taubes "It hurts people's ability to reintegrate into society when they carry these debts"
Open source (opens in a new tab)They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Read more
Taubes, a New Haven civil-rights attorney, said carrying incarceration debt makes it harder for formerly incarcerated people to reintegrate into society.
Role at the time: Civil-rights and criminal-defense attorney
Before the statement
Taubes was commenting on the effect of Connecticut's incarceration debt on people after release.
After the statement
CT Mirror's investigation found many people pursued for the debt did not know they owed it until a lien was filed against them.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Taubes criticizes the practical effect of the debt on people rebuilding their lives after release.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Lisa Foster "It's not the way we should be running the criminal justice system. It's a regressive tax"
Open source (opens in a new tab)They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Read more
Foster, a co-founder of the Fines and Fees Justice Center and a former California judge, said laws like Connecticut's function as an extra financial punishment on people who have already served their sentence.
Role at the time: Co-founder, Fines and Fees Justice Center; former California Superior Court judge
Before the statement
Foster was commenting generally on state laws that charge incarcerated people for the cost of their imprisonment, including Connecticut's.
After the statement
She said it does not matter that a person has already served their sentence and paid their debt to society.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Foster rejects the law as an improper way to run the criminal justice system and frames it as an unfair extra tax on formerly incarcerated people.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Dan Barrett "It builds so quickly that you can reach astronomical numbers within a comparatively short amount of time"
Open source (opens in a new tab)They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Read more
Barrett, the ACLU of Connecticut's legal director, said the daily cost Connecticut assigns to prisoners builds quickly enough to reach very high total debts in a short period.
Role at the time: Legal director, ACLU of Connecticut
Before the statement
CT Mirror's investigation found Connecticut's daily per diem is more than double the federal government's rate.
After the statement
Barrett separately said the state's practice amounts to trying to collect money from people who have very little left after prison.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Barrett directly criticizes the size and pace of the debt as unreasonably high, rejecting the fairness of its effect on people who owe it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Natasha Tosado "No family should have to bury a child, and the state is making that pain worse. I will never stop grieving Jayson. The settlement in his death was the best acknowledgment we could get that they took his life, and that it was wrong. The state trying to take that money forces me and my family to relive the trauma of Jayson’s death, and it has left me angry and hurt. By joining this lawsuit, I am fighting for myself and for other families, because none of us should have to go through this"
Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"CondemnedResponding to: Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Read more
Tosado, whose son was fatally shot by a Bridgeport police officer while she was incarcerated, said the state trying to take part of the wrongful-death settlement from his death compounds her family's grief, and she joined the federal lawsuit against the law.
Role at the time: Plaintiff, Beatty v. Lamont; mother of Jayson Negron
Before the statement
Tosado's fifteen-year-old son, Jayson Negron, was fatally shot by a Bridgeport police officer in 2017 while Tosado was incarcerated. His estate later reached a settlement with the city, and the state sought part of it to satisfy Tosado's incarceration debt.
After the statement
Tosado joined the federal lawsuit against the law as a plaintiff on April 20, 2023.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"Why this label?
Tosado directly objects to the state pursuing part of a wrongful-death settlement tied to her son's death, describing the practice as adding to her family's harm.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Teresa Beatty "I just don’t think it’s right, because I feel I already paid my debt to society. I just don’t think it’s fair for me to be paying twice"
Open source (opens in a new tab)At $249 Per Day, Prison Stays Leave Ex-Inmates Deep in DebtFull articleCondemnedResponding to: Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Read more
Beatty, who later became the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the law, said she does not think it is right for the state to collect money for her incarceration after she already served her sentence.
Role at the time: Formerly incarcerated Stamford resident; lead plaintiff, Beatty v. Lamont
Before the statement
Beatty was incarcerated for two and a half years on drug charges and later faced a state lien on money she inherited from her mother.
After the statement
She became the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed the same year challenging the law.
Why this label?
Beatty directly rejects the practice as unfair to her personally, framing it as a second punishment for the same offense.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(4)
Reporting
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Relevant passage: Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Excerpt
"The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison."
About this source
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
- Author
- Ginny Monk and Andrew Brown
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Relevant passage: Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
Excerpt
"As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont."
About this source
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
- Author
- ACLU of Connecticut
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
At $249 Per Day, Prison Stays Leave Ex-Inmates Deep in Debt
Relevant passage: Full article
Excerpt
"Under the revised law, about 98% of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out, said state Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat and a sponsor of the repeal legislation."
About this source
Associated Press wire story republished by NBC Connecticut, reported around the time Connecticut's 2022 partial overhaul of the cost-of-incarceration law took effect. Quotes Sen. John Kissel defending the underlying policy, Rep. Steve Stafstrom describing the reform's effect, and affected individuals including Teresa Beatty, Fred Hodges and Da'ee McKnight.
- Author
- The Associated Press
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)
Relevant passage: Full report, including the "Property Subject to the State's Claim," "Lawsuit Proceeds" and "Inheritance" sections
Excerpt
"A new law additionally exempts up to $50,000 of an inmate’s other assets except those for inmates incarcerated for capital felony or murder with special circumstances, felony murder, 1st and 2nd degree sexual assault, 1st degree aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault of a minor (PA 22-118, §§ 457-458, effective upon passage"
About this source
Nonpartisan Connecticut General Assembly research report summarizing the state's cost-of-incarceration statutes (CGS SS 18-85a, 18-85b and 18-85c) and the 2022 amendments made by Public Act 22-118, including the $50,000 asset exemption, the narrowed lawsuit-proceeds lien and the 20-year collection windows for lawsuit proceeds, inheritances and estates.
- Author
- Michelle Kirby, Office of Legislative Research
- Published
- Accessed