FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Manuel Rosario,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-119
Hartford Police
Department,
Respondent June 11, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 22, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On
February 11, 1986 the complainant filed four citizen complaints with the
respondent, alleging police misconduct.
3. The
complainant's complaints were subsequently investigated and the results were
documented and presented in a report to the Investigative Review Board, an
agency of the City of Hartford which reviews the determinations of the Internal
Affairs Division of the respondent.
4. The
Investigative Review Board scheduled a hearing on the report, which hearing was
attended by the complainant. The board
members had before them the investigative file and report.
5. At
the hearing before the Investigative Review Board the complainant, who believed
that the report contained facts contrary to those alleged in his complaints,
made a request of the board to examine the report, which request was
denied. By letter dated April 7, 1986
the deputy chief of the respondent informed the complainant that it was the
City of Hartford's position that the requested investigative files were exempt
from disclosure.
Docket #FIC
86-119 Page Two
6. By
letter dated May 5, 1986 the complainant appealed the denial of his request for
records.
7. The
respondent claims that the requested files are exempted from disclosure by
1-19(b)(2).
8. The
respondent also claims that the requested files are "personnel files"
within the meaning of 31-128a(3), G.S. and that disclosure of such files
is restricted by 31-128(f), G.S.
9. It
is found that the documents and reports in question were used by the
Investigative Review Board to determine whether disciplinary action against a
police officer was necessary.
10. It
is further found that the records in question serve a function which is
distinct from the recording of data for personnel or similar purposes. Such records constitute records of
non-criminal, police internal affairs investigations and relate directly to the
conduct of the public's business.
11. It
is further found that there is a legitimate public interest in both allegations
of misconduct by police officers and in the treatment and ultimate disposition
of such allegations by the Internal Affairs Division of the respondent.
12. It
is concluded that disclosure of the records in question would not constitute an
invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It
is further found that Chapter 563a of the General Statutes governs disclosure
of personnel records by private entities, not by public agencies, and that
31-128a(3) and 31-128(f), G.S. are therefore not applicable to the
records in question.
14. The
respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempted from
disclosure by any other state statute or federal law.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent forthwith shall provide the complainant with access to inspect or
copy the investigative file and reports regarding the four complaints filed by
him on February 11, 1986.
Docket
#FIC86-119 page
3
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 11, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission