FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Clarence Jennings, Jr.,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 89-131
Easton Chief of Police,
Respondent April 11, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 15 and October 27, 1989, and February 9 and 20, 1990, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 16, 1989, the complainant requested the respondent provide him with copies of any of the following that name or refer to the complainant or his son, Clarence Jennings, III:
a. audio or video recordings;
b. photographs, printed information or computer records;
c. and interagency or intra-agency correspondence to Attorneys Robert Mitchell or Ron Williams, the Superior Courts, the Bridgeport probation offices, any Connecticut police departments, the Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as citizen inquiries.
3. By letter dated and postmarked April 10, 1989, and filed with the Commission on April 12, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging the denial of his request.
4. It is found that by letter dated March 22, 1989, the respondent informed the complainant that he would be provided with access to the records, but that the large amount of material would cause some delay in searching for them.
5. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent responded to the complainant's request within four business days, as required by 1-21i(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Two
6. It is found that by letter dated April 6, 1989, the respondent informed the complainant that the respondent's staff had compiled 632 pages of documents, 1 audio tape recording, and 2 video tape recordings; that the complainant could obtain these at the police headquarters; and that the cost would be $193.
7. It is found that the complainant signed a receipt for the materials described in paragraph 6, above, on April 11, 1989, at 5:36 p.m.
8. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent moved to dismiss the matter, claiming that the complainant's complaint was premature, as he could not have known on April 10, 1989, whether the respondent had fulfilled his request. The hearing officer reserved judgment on the motion to dismiss.
9. It is found that the respondent did provide the complainant with a large volume of records reasonably promptly.
10. It is concluded, therefore, that as to those records the respondent provided to the complainant on April 11, 1989, the respondent complied with the open records requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
11. It is further found, however, that once the complainant reviewed the records he received on April 11, 1989, he believed that at least twenty-eight records were missing and that the respondent had not fully complied with his request, and chose to pursue his complaint on that limited basis.
12. The motion to dismiss, therefore, is hereby denied.
13. Also at the hearing, the respondent submitted a Vaughn Index and ninety-nine records for in camera review by the Commission, as ordered by the Hearing Officer.
14. In addition, at the hearing the complainant moved to default the respondent for not complying with the Hearing Officer's order, since part of the first set of records provided for the Commission's review was highly redacted.
15. It is found that the respondent quickly ameliorated the situation and provided the Commission with copies which, although they remained redacted in a few places, provided the Commission with sufficient information in context for a useful in camera review.
16. The motion to default, therefore, is hereby denied.
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Three
17. At the hearing the respondent also agreed that he could provide the complainant with copies of the records offered for in camera inspection numbered 21 and 29 by the respondent.
18. It is found that the records numbered 20 and 23 do not name or refer to the complainant or his son and are, therefore, outside the scope of the complainant's request.
19. It is found that the following records, as numbered by the respondent, contain throughout: information that would contribute to the identification of informants, uncorroborated information which would significantly damage the reputations of persons not convicted of crimes related to that information, and information related to present and/or future law enforcement actions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 15.
20. It is concluded that the records listed in paragraph 19, above, are exempt from disclosure under 1-20d, G.S., in their entirety.
21. It is found that in the following records information that would contribute to the identification of informants, uncorroborated information which would significantly damage the reputations of persons not convicted of crimes related to that information, and information related to present or future law enforcement actions is mixed with other information in a way that would allow the redaction of the exempt information: 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22.
22. It is concluded, therefore, that only those parts of the records listed in paragraph 21, above, that contain the information described in 1-20d, G.S., are exempt from disclosure.
23. It is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19, G.S., by failing to disclose the information in the records described in paragraph 21, above, that is not exempt from disclosure.
24. It is found that the records numbered 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 are preliminary drafts of letters and memorandums.
25. It is further found that the respondent determined that the public's interest in withholding these letters and memorandums clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
26. Thus it is concluded that the records listed in paragraph 24, above, are exempt from disclosure.
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Four
27. It is found that the record numbered 19 pertains throughout to the investigation and arrest of a juvenile.
28. It is concluded that the record numbered 19 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(D), G.S.
29. It is found that the records numbered 37, 38 and 39 are tape recordings of conversations which contain information throughout that would would contribute to the identification of informants, disclose uncorroborated information which would significantly damage the reputations of persons not convicted of crimes related to that information, and relates to present or future law enforcement actions.
30. It is concluded that records 37, 38 and 39 are exempt from disclosure under 1-20d, G.S.
31. As for the records numbered 40 and 41, the video tape recordings, the Commission lacks the equipment necessary for reviewing these records.
32. At the hearing the respondent provided the complainant with redacted copies of the records numbered 42 - 99.
33. It is found that much of the redacted information in the records numbered 42, 43, 48, 49 and 50 would contribute to the identification of informants, is uncorroborated information which would significantly damage the reputations of persons not convicted of crimes related to that information, and relates to present and/or future law enforcement actions.
34. It is found that the rest of the redacted information in the records listed in paragraph 33, above, are records of criminal and nollied matters currently subject to "erasure" under 54-142a, G.S.
35. It is concluded, therefore, that the redacted information in the records listed in paragraph 33, above, is exempt from disclosure under 1-20d and 54-142a, G.S.
36. It is found that the redacted information in the records numbered 44, 47, 54, 61, 65, 69, 70 and 95, are records of nollied charges and criminal matters currently subject to "erasure" under 54-142a, G.S.
37. It is concluded, therefore, that the redacted information in the records listed in paragraph 36, above, is exempt from disclosure under 54-142a, G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Five
38. It is found that the redacted information in record 45 pertains to a nollied charge and a criminal matter currently subject to "erasure" under 54-142a, G.S., and information about a juvenile arrest and its investigation.
39. It is concluded that the redacted information in record 45 is exempt from disclosure under 54-142a and 1-19(b)(3)(D), G.S.
40. It is found that the redacted information in the records numbered 46, 66, 67, 74, 77, 81, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96 and 98 pertains to juvenile arrests and their investigations.
41. It is concluded, therefore, that the redacted information in the records listed in paragraph 40, above, is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(D), G.S.
42. It is found that the redacted information in records numbered 49 and 75 would contribute to the identification of informants and pertains to juvenile arrests and their investigations.
43. It is concluded that the redacted information in records 49 and 75 is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(D) and 1-20d, G.S.
44. It is found that the redacted information in the records numbered 52, 53, 57, 63, 68, 72, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97, and 99 would contribute to the identification of informants.
45. It is concluded that the redacted information in the records listed in paragraph 44, above, are exempt from disclosure under 1-20d, G.S.
46. It is found that the records numbered 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 71, 73, 76 and 84 do not name or refer to the complainant or his son.
47. It is concluded that the records listed in paragraph 50, above, are outside the scope of the complaint.
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned matter:
1. The respondent forthwith shall provide the complainant with copies of the records reviewed in camera numbered 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22 by the respondent.
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Six
2. When the respondent provides copies of these records to the complainant, he may redact only that information that would contribute to the identification of informants, uncorroborated information which would significantly damage the reputations of persons not convicted of crimes related to that information, and information related to present or future law enforcement actions.
3. The Commission declines to issue an order as to the records reviewed in camera numbered 40 and 41 by the respondent.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 11, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-131 Page Seven
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
CLARENCE JENNINGS, JR.
c/o William M. Laviano, Esquire
24 Bailey Avenue
Ridgefield, CT 06877
EASTON CHIEF OF POLICE
c/o Michael P. A. Williams, Esquire
Marsh, Day & Calhoun
2507 Post Road
Southport, CT 06490
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission