FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Edward A. Peruta,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-434
Stan Chesnas, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,
Respondent May 23, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 30, 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. It is found that by written request on November 22, 1989, the complainant requested and was denied access to a report of a motor vehicle accident, No. H-89-198218.
3. It is found that on February 27, 1990, the complainent received a copy of the requested accident report and a bill, which he did not pay.
4. It is found that on November 22, 1989, the complainant filed his complaint with the Commission in which he alleged he had been denied access to the requested motor vehicle report.
5. At hearing the complainant asserted and then withdrew his claim that he was denied copies of letters from insurance companies and from attorneys that requested copies of the report.
6. The respondent claimed the report was exempt at the time of the request in November 1989 pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S., because it was information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action which if disclosed would be prejudicial to such law enforcement action.
Docket #FIC 89-434 page two
7. It is found the investigation which is documented in the requested record led to an arrest at the end of December, 1989.
8. It is found that the respondent withheld the requested report based upon advice he received from the labor relations department, based upon the FOI guidelines of that department.
9. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of part or all of the report requested by the complainant would have been predjudicial to a law enforcement action pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent failed to provide the requested record promptly, as required by 1-19(a), G.S.
11. The complainant requests that the Commission impose a civil penalty.
12. It is found under the facts of this case that a civil penalty is not appropriate.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth comply with 1-19, G.S.
2. The Commission warns the respondent that in the future he could incur a civil penalty pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., if he withholds records without apparent factual basis for the exemption which is claimed.
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 89-434 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:
EDWARD A. PERUTA
P.O. Box 307
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
STAN CHESNAS, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
c/o Margaret Quilter Chapple
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission