FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Joseph R. Killen,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-358
Chief, Windsor Locks Police
Department
Respondent May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 19, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared,
stipulated to certain facts 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. In March,
1987 the complainant filed a gun permit application with the Windsor Locks
police department.
3. By letter
dated September 4, 1987 the respondent informed the complainant that, based on
the results of the police department's background investigation, the
complainant's gun permit application had been denied.
4. By letter
dated November 23, 1987 the complainant made a request of the respondent for a
report of the department's background investigation, including the names and
statements of persons interviewed.
5. By letter
dated November 27, 1987 the respondent denied the complainant's request.
6. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on December 9, 1987 the complainant
appealed the respondent's denial of his request for records.
7. It is
found that a member of the Windsor Locks police department investigated the
complainant's fitness for a gun permit by interviewing 12 to 15 neighbors and
other acquaintances of the complainant.
The officer took notes on their comments, which comments formed the
basis of a report submitted to the respondent.
Docket #FIC 87-358 Page
Two
8. The
respondent claims that he does not wish to release the information to the
complainant for fear that the complainant, who has a criminal record, will
retaliate against persons who made negative comments and because he does not
want to discourage the public from cooperating in the future.
9. The
respondent further claims that the officer's report is a preliminary draft or
note upon which the respondent based his own final decision, that he made a
determination that the public interest in promoting cooperation in such
investigations by withholding the report outweighed the public interest in
disclosure and that the report is, therefore, exempt from disclosure pursuant
to §1-19(b)(1), G.S.
10. It is
found that the notes taken by the investigating officer in the course of
interviewing acquaintances of the complainant, which notes formed the basis of
the officer's report to the respondent, are preliminary drafts or notes within
the meaning of §1-19(b)(1), G.S.
11. It is
found, based on the respondent's determination that the public interest in
withholding the records outweighs the public interest in disclosure, that such
notes are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(1), G.S.
12. It is
found, however, that the investigating officer's report to the chief is an
intra-agency report comprising part of the process by which a governmental
decision was formulated within the meaning of §1-19(c), G.S.
13. It is
concluded that such report is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(b)(1), G.S., it is, rather, subject to disclosure pursuant to §1-19(c),
G.S.
14. The
respondent failed to prove that the report submitted by the officer, or the
information contained therein, is exempted from disclosure by any provision of
the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or federal law.
15. Under the
specific circumstances of this case, however, the Commission declines to order
disclosure of the comments of one person whose situation is unique to the
complaint and the names of persons who provided information to the
investigating officer.
Docket #FIC 87-358 Page
Three
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 report referred to at paragraph 12 of the findings, above.
2. In
complying with paragraph 1 of the Order, above, the respondent may mask or
delete the comments of one person whose situation is unique to the complaint
and the names of persons who supplied information concerning the complainant's
suitability for a gun permit.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission