FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Henri Alexandre and City of Hartford Commission on Human Relations,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-343
Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department,
Respondent April 11, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 30, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Also at hearing, Officer Antonio Champion was granted party status, and the Hartford Police Union was granted intervenor status for the purpose of argument only.
At hearing, counsel for Officer Champion offered the records at issue for in camera inspection, which motion was granted by the hearing officer.
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 August 3, 1989, the complainants requested the following information concerning Internal Affairs Department case #89-22: a. the name(s) of officer(s) involved in the incident; b. the nature and extent of the discipline of the officer(s); c. the number of prior citizen complaints that have been filed against the officer(s) involved.
3. By letter dated August 11, 1989, this request was denied.
4. By letter dated September 11, 1989, the complainants filed an appeal of this denial with this Commission.
5. It is found that the respondent does not object to disclosure of the documents requested and identified in paragraph 2, above.
Docket #FIC 89-343 Page 2
6. It is found that the the respondent asked Officer Champion if he objected to disclosure of the records requested by the complainants, which objection Officer Champion made.
7. Officer Champion claims that the requested documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
8. It is found that the records requested are personnel or medical files and similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
9. It is found that the records in question were generated in response to allegations of misconduct on the part of an employee of the respondent police chief's police department.
10. It is found that such records constitute the record of a non-criminal, police internal affairs investigation and the administrative disposition thereof, and relate directly to the conduct of the public's business.
11. It is further found that due to the high degree of public accountability of police officers and to the legitimate and overriding interest of the public in the conduct of its police officers, the disclosure of the requested records would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
12. It is found that the requested documents contain no reference to personal medical information, religious conviction or affiliation, personal financial data, marital status or family situation, or any other reference unrelated to the officer's performance as a public employee.
13. It is also found that the following reference to in camera documents submitted in this contested case contain the identity of a complainant who is neither an arrestee in the underlying case nor a public official: In camera document #116A lines 10 and 11; and #114A line 22, seventh and eighth words from the left.
14. It is concluded that the information identified in paragraph 13, above, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S. because the personal privacy interests of the private individual outweighs the competing public interest in disclosure of those portions of the documents that discloses that individual's identity.
15. It is concluded that except for the information identified at paragraph 13, above, the public interest in
Docket #FIC 89-343 Page 3
disclosure clearly outweighs any competing personal privacy interests in disclosure of the requested records.
16. Officer Champion offered for in camera inspection an affidavit by him. This offer was denied as Officer Champion was present during hearing and the affidavit was not a record requested in this case.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to the records at issue described herein at paragraph 2, above.
2. The respondent may mask or redact the portions of the requested records that have been found to be exempt from disclosure herein at paragraph 13, above.
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 89-343 Page 3
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:
HENRI ALEXANDRE AND CITY OF HARTFORD COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
CHIEF OF POLICE, HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o H. Maria Cone, Esquire
Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
THE HARTFORD POLICE UNION AND ANTONIO CHAMPION
c/o Stephen F. McEleney, Esquire
McEleney & McGrail
363 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission