FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
William H. Daley and The Middletown Press,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-407
Middletown Police Department,
Respondent October 24, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 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 of complaint dated October 30, 1989 and filed with the Commission on November 1, 1989, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their request to review all documents pertaining to a completed internal investigation of Lt. Louis Aresco had been denied.
3. It is found that Lt. Aresco is a high-ranking officer in the Middletown Police Department.
4. It is found that Lt. Aresco was the subject of an internal investigation concerning allegations of misconduct, and that as a result of the investigation he was suspended and transferred.
5. Lt. Aresco is granted party status in this matter.
6. It is found that the complainants by letter dated October 24, 1989 requested all documents pertaining to the completed internal investigation of Lt. Louis Aresco by the Middletown Police Department.
7. It is found that the respondent denied the request by letter dated October 26, 1989, and also notified Lt. Aresco of the request by letter dated October 26, 1989.
Docket #FIC 89-407 Page 2
8. It is found that Lt. Aresco objected to disclosure of the requested documents by statement dated October 27, 1989.
9. It is found that the respondent again denied the complainants' request on or about October 30, 1989.
10. It is concluded that the records referenced in paragraph 6, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
11. It is also concluded that the requested records are personnel or medical and similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is found that the respondent and Lt. Aresco failed to offer any evidence to prove that disclosure of the requested records would constitute an invasion of his personal privacy.
13. It is found that there is a legitimate and overriding public interest in the performance of police officers and in their fitness to perform, including any allegations of misconduct. Such legitimate public interest extends to cases in which there have been findings of culpability and those where none have been found.
14. It is concluded that to the extent the requested records pertain to Lt. Aresco's actual performance as a police officer, his fitness to perform as a police officer, or to allegations concerning such performance or fitness to perform, disclosure of such records would not on balance constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
15. It is concluded that the records referenced in paragraph 6, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. It is found that one of the requested records is a statement voluntarily given to the respondent by Lt. Aresco with the understanding that it would not be released to any third party.
17. It is also concluded under the facts of this case, that to order disclosure of the statement described in paragraph 16, above, would work an injustice upon Lt. Aresco that outweighs the public interest in disclosing the statement.
Docket #FIC 89-407 Page 3
18. Therefore, the Commission in its discretion declines to order disclosure of the statement described in paragraph 16, above.
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 to the complainant copies of the requested records referenced in paragraph 6 of the findings, above, with the exception of the record described in paragraph 16 of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 24, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-407 Page 4
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:
WILLIAM H. DALEY AND THE MIDDLETOWN PRESS
2 Main Street
P.O. Box 471
Middletown, CT 06457
MIDDLETOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o Trina A. Solecki, Esq.
245 DeKoven Drive
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457
LT. LOUIS ARESCO
c/o Joseph Milardo, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 1298
Middletown, CT 06457
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission