If you get pulled over by a police officer don’t expect to escape a ticket by explaining that the speed limit was inconvenient because abiding by the limit would have made you late, or underutilized the high performance of your car, or just didn’t make sense given the light traffic.

Yet “it’s inconvenient” is the excuse some police chiefs are providing for not following the law, in this case a law dictating what information police must provide to the public, including the news media, when police arrest someone.

In 2014, the state Supreme Court concluded that when it came to providing information about why police had arrested a person, Connecticut law allowed the police to keep details secret. Under the law at the time, all police had to provide was the name, age, address and the charges.

Some departments would provide more information than others would. Even the same department would provide ample information about one arrestee, say a suspect in a drug bust that police wanted to crow about, but only basic “blotter” information about another alleged crime, perhaps an assault in a business district that the authorities would just as soon not see draw media attention.

In an unusual move, the court indicated the current situation might not be such a great thing, noting that the General Assembly should consider the opportunity to modify the law “as it sees fit.”

In 2015, with then-state Rep. Ed Jutila of East Lyme, co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, playing a lead role, legislation was introduced and passed that balanced the public’s right to know with adequate protections for defendants and for the integrity of the judicial process. Both freedom of information advocates and Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, Connecticut’s top state prosecutor, signed off on the legislation.

The Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information presented Jutila with its Champion of Open Government Award for his work on the law.

If police make an arrest based on a court-issued warrant, they need to provide the warrant when asked. If someone is arrested without a warrant because of their alleged criminal activity, police must provide the official arrest report or a summary of the actions and evidence that led to the arrest.

According to the law, this information becomes available to the public “from the time of such arrest.”

If police, in seeking a warrant, fear its release could inhibit a larger investigation, they can ask the judge to order it sealed. The law also allows the redaction of information about witnesses or other sensitive evidence.

But when Day Staff Writer Lindsay Boyle set out to see how our local departments were complying with this straight-forward law, she found some troubling results. While departments serving Ledyard, Stonington and the City of Groton are in compliance, others are not.

In New London, a requester is unlikely to get arrest warrant or arrest report information until a defendant has been arraigned in court. Acting New London Police Chief Peter Reichard told Boyle that he is concerned about the department releasing information to the public that a court may later order sealed or expunged. Groton Town Police Sgt. Kelly Crandall, who handles records requests, said when an arrestee has been released on bond, her department also prefers to wait until his or her arraignment before releasing arrest information.

That’s not the law. As Kane, the chief state’s attorney who signed off on the legislation, told the Day, “If it’s not sealed, the presumption is it’s a public record.”

Intending to provide reassurance, Reichard noted, “With any major incident, we usually put out a full media release.”

Sorry, chief, but it is not your job to judge what is “major” enough to warrant access to information.

In Norwich, the public is told they should be expected to wait if the detective division is handling the case. State police likewise say the public should expect delays in getting arrest reports.

No they shouldn’t.

Some of these departments blame older technology for not having information ready. However, don’t expect the state to let you skip filing a tax return on time because your home computer is outdated.

When every department is making up its own rules it means unequal treatment under the law for those arrested.

Through its Division of Criminal Justice, the Malloy administration should make it clear compliance with the law is not optional. Kane needs to send the same message.

It shouldn’t take legal action to force law enforcement to comply with the law.