FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Regina Prokoski‑Pasqualini,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88‑271
Chief, Milford Police
Department, Milford Police Department and Milford City Attorney,
Respondents November
9, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 30, 1988, at which time the complainant 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 January 19, 1988 the complainant complained to the respondent department
that she had been receiving harassing telephone calls. The complainant's report was designated
incident #651453. Following an
investigation, the respondent department concluded that the complainant's
complaints of harassment were unfounded and the case was closed.
3. By letter
dated May 19, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondent chief for a
copy of incident report #651453.
4. By letter
dated May 27, 1988 the respondent chief informed the complainant that her
request had been forwarded to the respondent city attorney.
5. By
letters dated June 17, 1988, June 24, 1988 and June 30, 1988 the complainant
made requests of the respondent city attorney for the incident report.
6. By letter
dated July 7, 1988 the respondent city attorney denied the complainant's
request for the incident report.
Docket #FIC 88‑271 Page
Two
7. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on July 7, 1988 the complainant appealed
the respondents' failure to provide the requested record.
8. It is
found that as of the date of hearing the respondents had provided the
complainant with a copy of the requested incident report from which had been
deleted all references to witnesses' identities and all statements concerning
the complainant's mental or emotional state.
9. The
respondents claim that they deleted the information referred to at paragraph 8,
above, because they feared the complainant would harass witnesses if she were
to learn their identities and the full contents of their statements.
10. It is
found that the information referred to at paragraph 8, above, is information
contained in a record of a law enforcement agency, not otherwise available to
the public, and compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of
crime.
11. It is
further found that disclosure of the identities of witnesses would not be in
the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identities
of informants not otherwise known within the meaning of §1‑19(b)(3)(A),
G.S.
12. It is concluded
that information contained in incident report #651453 which would reveal the
identities of witnesses is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1‑19(b)(3)(A),
G.S.
13. It is
found, however, that the respondents failed to prove that the contents of
witnesses' statements were exempt from disclosure pursuant to any provision of
the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or federal law.
14. It is
found that the respondents failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the
requested incident report promptly, in violation of §1‑15, G.S.
15. It is
further found that the respondents improperly deleted information concerning
witnesses' statements, in violation of §§1‑15 and 1‑19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainant with a copy of incident
report #651453.
Docket #FIC 88‑271 Page
Three
2. In
complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondents may mask or
otherwise delete information which, if disclosed, would reveal the identities
of informants not otherwise known.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 9, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission