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