FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Vera S. Zima,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-241
State's Attorney, Judicial District of New Haven; Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police and Chief of Police, Wallingford Police Department,
Respondents November 28, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 10, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
The complaint was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 90-257, Vera S. Zima v. North Haven Police Department and State's Attorney, Judicial District of New Haven; and Docket #FIC 90-154 Vera S. Zima v. Reports and Records Division State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police because of the similarity of their subject matters.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent Chief of Police of the Wallingford Police Department and the respondent Forensic Science Laboratory of the Deaprtment of Public Safety are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that the respondent state's attorney is not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
3. It is concluded that the complaint against the respondent state's attorney should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
4. By letter of request addressed to the respondent chief and dated May 29, 1990, the complainant requested copies of what she believed were the entire photographic record of an
Docket #FIC 90-241 Page Two
investigation of crime involving multiple murders, arson, and rape, which was identified as WPDCN 86-12443. Her request specifically enumerated 127 crime scene photographs, two videotapes, and 27 slides.
5. By letter dated June 15, 1990, the department of administrative services of the Wallingford Police Department, acting on behalf of the respondent chief, provided the complainant with a catalogue of the photographs, the videotapes and the slides that the department posessed concerning WPDCN 86-12443.
6. The June 15, 1990 letter of the respondent denied the complainant copies of any slides, photos or portions of the video tapes which deal with the part of the investigation concerning the sexual assault because it was incomplete. The letter required advance payment by the complainant in accordance with its price list for the processing of any other slides, photos or videotapes in the catalogue.
7. The complainant alleged that she does not have to pay the prices listed in the catalogue because in an earlier case the Freedom of Information Commission ordered that she be provided with copies of records free of charge.
8. It is found that no earlier order of the Commission has applicability to the request which is the subject of this contested case.
9. It is found that the complainant is not indigent.
10. It is concluded that the complainant is not entitled to receive copies of the records in the Wallingford police department free of charge.
11. It is found that the complainant has not had an opportunity to inspect the records listed in the catalogue, and that since she already has copies of many photographs taken for the investigation, she needs an opportunity to determine which of the photographs she seeks.
12. It is found that the prices listed for the reproduction of photographs exceed the $.50 cost premitted by 1-15, G.S., for photocopies of records.
13. It is concluded, if the complainant is content with the quality of photocopies made from the already existing photographs, rather than photographic reproductions from the original negatives, that she has a right to have such photocopies at the statutory rate set forth at 1-15, G.S.,
Docket #FIC 90-241 Page Three
rather than at the rates for photographic reproductions set forth in the fee schedule of the Wallingford Police Department.
14. It is found that although nothing in 1-15, G.S., permits the respondent chief to charge more than the actual cost for photographic reproductions and copies of videotapes, there was no evidence that the listed prices for the reproductions of photographs, slides amd videotapes exceed the actual cost.
15. It is concluded that if the complainant wants reproductions of photos, and slides in any form other than photocopies, she must pay for them in advance in accordance with the price list.
16. It is found that the Wallingford Police Department is still investigating the sexual assault which is part of investigation WPDCN 86-12443.
17. The respondent chief claims that disclosure of photographs, slides, and/or videotapes which pertain to the investigation of the sexual assault would be prejudicial to its prospective law enforcement action.
18. It is found that disclosure of photographs, slides, and/or videotapes which pertain to the investigation of the sexual assault would be prejudicial to a prospective law enforcement action.
19. It is concluded, therefore, pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S., the respondent chief is not required to disclose photographs, slides, or videotapes, or any portion thereof which pertain to the incomplete investigation of the sexual assault.
20. The respondent Forensic Science Laboratory claims it cannot provide the complainant with any slides, photos or videotapes because it no longer has these records.
21. It is found that although the records were in the possession of the Forensic Science Laboratory, they have been returned to the Wallingford Police Department.
22. It is concluded that the respondent Forensic Science Laboratory does not have the requested records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint against the respondent state's attorney and the respondent Forensic Science Laboratory is hereby dismissed.
Docket #FIC 90-241 Page Four
2. The respondent chief shall permit the complainant to inspect the photographs, slides and videos which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(b), G.S., to determine whether she wishes to have copies.
3. The respondent chief shall photocopy such photographs that the complainant determines she wants, provided the complainant pays the statutory fee of $.50 per page in advance as required by 1-15, G.S.
4. The respondent chief may charge the complainant in accordance with its price list for copies other than photocopies of its slides, photographs and for copies of its videos, and the complainant must pay such charges in advance.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 28, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-241 Page Five
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:
VERA S. ZIMA
114 Lincoln Avenue
Forestville, CT 06010
STATE'S ATTORNEY, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
c/o Gary W. Nicholson, Esq.
Assistant State's Attorney
235 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
c/o Margaret Quilter Chapple, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
CHIEF OF POLICE, WALLINGFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o Janis M. Small, Esquire
Wallingford Town Attorney
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission