FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Patricia A. Hines and the Fairfield Citizen-News,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-51
Investigation Division, Fairfield Police Department and Fairfield
Police Department,
Respondents May
25, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on March 30, 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. By letter dated January 14, 1988 Gregory N.
Heires, a reporter for the complainant Citizen-News, made a request of the
respondent for the following documents relating to an assault allegedly
committed by Richard Cellar:
a. All
supplemental reports prepared;
b. The
affidavit prepared by Lori Motel regarding her alleged assault by Richard
Cellar as described in incident report #87-19546;
c. The
arrest warrant charging Richard Cellar with assault in the third degree;
d. Court
transcript relating to legal proceedings regarding incident #87-19546;
e. Any
medical records obtained by the respondents concerning the injuries sustained
by Lori Motel;
Docket #FIC 88-51 Page 2
f. Any
correspondence between the respondents and the Office of the State's Attorney
in Bridgeport regarding incident #87-19546; and
g. Transcripts
of the final disposition of the court proceedings regarding incident #87-19546.
3. By letter dated January 20, 1988 Lieutenant
John McLaine of the respondent investigation division denied Gregory Heires access
to the requested information, claiming that the information he sought was
exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
4. By letter of complaint dated February 5,
1988 and filed with the Commission on February 16, 1988 the complainants
appealed the denial of their request.
5. With respect to the documents described at
paragraph 2a, above, it is found that there are approximately 10 supplemental
reports concerning the alleged assault in question.
6. It is also found that the investigation
concerning the assault has been concluded by the respondents, and that Richard
Cellar, the subject of said investigation, has stated that he has no objection
to the disclosure of the subject reports.
7. The respondents claim, however, that all of
the supplemental reports are exempt from mandatory disclosure under
§1-19(b)(3), G.S.
8. The respondents argue that disclosure of the
supplemental reports would set a dangerous precedent because every file
contained in the police department would then be disclosable to the public.
9. It is found, however, that the respondents
failed to prove that the supplemental reports described in paragraph 5, above,
are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(3), G.S., or under any other
provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or federal
law.
10. It is therefore concluded that the
supplemental reports prepared by the respondents concerning the incident in
question are not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(3), G.S.
11. It is therefore concluded that the
respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose a copies
of the supplemental reports promptly.
Docket #FIC 88-51 Page 3
12. With respect to the documents described at
paragraphs 2b, 2c and 2d, above, it is found that the respondents do not have
copies of these records. At the
hearing, Captain Sandbrook, a member of the respondent police department,
testified that these documents are in the custody of the court.
13. It is therefore concluded that the
respondents' failure to provide the complainants with copies of the documents
described at paragraphs 2b, 2c and 2d, above, did not violate §§1-15 or
1-19(a), G.S.
14. With respect to the documents described at
paragraphs 2e and 2g, above, it is found that the documents do not exist.
15. With respect to paragraph 2f, above, it is
found that the respondents failed to prove that these documents do not exist.
16. The Commission notes that had counsel for
the respondents been more familiar with its prior decisions addressing the
issue in question, the hearing would have proceeded in a more efficient manner.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the
complainants with copies of the records more fully described at paragraphs 2a
and 2f of the findings, above.
2. If the documents described at paragraph 2f
of the findings, above, do not exist, the respondents shall provide the
complainants with an affidavit stating that they have conducted a thorough
search of their files and that these records do not exist.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of May 25, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission