FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-360
Chief of Police, Windsor Locks Police Department,
Respondent May 23, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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. It is found that on September 12, 1989, the Windsor Locks police arrested two persons who were distributing literature with racist and anti-semitic content in front of a convenience store.
3. It is found that one of the persons, a youth, was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, and the other, an adult named William Landers, was charged with reckless endangerment.
4. It is found that on September 13, 1989, a reporter employed by the complainant Journal Inquirer requested the arrest/incident report pertaining to the arrests discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, and that the respondent denied the complainants access to the record after discussing the matter with the local prosecutor.
5. The complainants allege that the entire arrest/incident report should have been provided at the time of the request pursuant to 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-360 page two
6. The respondent claims that the record was exempt at the time of the request on September 13, 1989, pursuant to 1-19(b)(3).
7. The respondent claims further that he is an agent of the state's attorney, and that since the prosecutor advised against disclosure, the record was also exempt pursuant to 54-86a and 746 of the Connecticut Practice Book.
8. It is found that under the facts of this case the names of witnesses are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
9. It is found, because the youth who was arrested in the arrest/incident described at paragraphs 2 and 3, obtained youthful offender status, that the portions of the report that specifically identify him and pertain to his arrest are exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(D), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that any other portions of the report were exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
11. It is found further that the respondent failed to prove he was an agent of the prosecutor and, therefore, required to withhold the report.
12. It is concluded that the respondent failed to provide the required report promptly as required by 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 respondent shall provide the complainants with a copy of the requested report. However, the respondent may mask those sections which are exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B) and (D), G.S. as provided at the above paragraphs 8 and 9.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 23, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-360 page three
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:
ROBERT H. BOONE AND JOURNAL INQUIRER
306 Progress Drive
Manchester, CT 06040
CHIEF OF POLICE, WINDSOR LOCKS POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o David J. Wenc, Esquire
5 North Main Street
P.O. Box 306
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission