FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by CORRECTED
FINAL DECISION
Edward Ericson and the
Fairfield County Advocate,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-373
Bridgeport Police
Superintendent and Bridgeport Police Department,
Respondents May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 29, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents
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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On or about
October 7, 1987 the complainants made a request of the respondent
superintendent for a list of all residents in the City of Bridgeport with a
city permit to carry a pistol.
3.
Specifically, the complainants are seeking access to the following
information about each permit holder:
a. name;
b. address;
c. date of birth;
d. occupation;
e. the date that
the permit was issued;
f. the sex of the
applicant;
g. the weapon(s)
registered; and
h. phone number.
Docket #FIC 87-373 Page 2
4. By letter
dated December 7, 1987 and filed with the Commission on December 14, 1987 the
complainants appealed the respondents' failure to comply with their October 7,
1987 request for records.
5. At the
hearing, the complainants amended their request to seek access to only current
permits.
6. It is found
that the requested permits constitute public records under §§1-18a(d) and
1-19(a), G.S., and must be disclosed under §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., unless
otherwise exempt.
7. The
respondents claim, however, that the the requested information is exempt from
disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S., as a "similar file."
8. It is found
that the respondents failed to prove that the requested records are similar
files, or that the disclosure of the requested information would constitute an
invasion of privacy within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
9. The requested
information on phone numbers and weapons registration is not included in the
permit.
10. It is
therefore concluded that the following information contained in the police
permit about each permit holder is not exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.:
a. name;
b. address;
c. date of birth;
d. occupation;
e. the date that the permit was issued;
f. sex of the applicant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
superintendent shall forthwith provide the complainants with copies of the
permits more fully described in paragraph 2, 3 and 10 of the findings of fact,
above.
Docket #FIC 87-373 Page 3
2. In complying
with paragraph 1 of this Order, the respondent superintendent may mask or
otherwise delete any information contained in the permits which is not
identified at paragraph 10 of the findings of fact.
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