FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
John Kulick,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-276
Philip Schnabel, Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department, O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Public Safety Director and Town of Rocky Hill,
Respondents August 26, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 27, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew his complaint against Philip Schnabel, Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department and O. Paul Schew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Public Safety Director.
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 dated August 27, 1991, the complainant requested from the respondent "copies of all videotapes of persons arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who were brought to the Rocky Hill Police Department (hereinafter "RHPD") and were videotaped during RHPD's booking procedures."
3. By reply letter dated August 28, 1991 the RHPD informed the complainant that access would not be provided to the requested videotapes until the complainant provided the identities of the individuals who are the subjects of his request, to enable the RHPD to determine the status of the individuals' cases and whether access is authorized.
Docket #FIC 91-276 Page 2
4. By letter dated and filed September 6, 1991 the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents denied his request for public records. The complainant further requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
5. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew his request for civil penalties.
6. It is found that the RHPD videotapes all arrested individuals as they go through the RHPD's booking procedures.
7. Specifically, the complainant has limited his request to the RHPD's videotaped bookings of individuals who were arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated (hereinafter "DWI") and were subsequently found guilty of the DWI offense or any lesser offense as a result of the DWI arrest.
8. At the hearing on this matter the complainant further limited his request to the videotapes of DWI booking procedures that occurred between January 3 and October 13, 1990.
9. The respondent submitted for in camera inspection, the videotaped booking of an individual arrested for DWI that occurred during the period specified by the complainant.
10. It is also found that the RHPD can ascertain the status of a DWI arrest, and thereby determine which videotapes fall within the purview of the complainant's request.
11. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
12. The respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of "personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."
14. The respondent maintains that it will not allow the RHPD to release the requested videotapes because the videotapes reveal the physical and mental condition of the arrested individual at the time of the arrest and contain medical information, they are medical records within the meaning of
Docket #FIC 91-276 Page 3
1-19(b)(2), G.S., and that disclosure would constitute an invasion of the subject individual's personal privacy.
15. It is found that during a booking for a DWI arrest, the arresting officer typically completes the arrest report and accompanying paperwork. In addition, if the arrested individual consents, the arresting officer administers two breathalizer tests, one-half hour apart, to determine whether the individual's blood alcohol content is rising or lowering.
16. It is also found that during a DWI booking, the arresting officer asks the arrested individual questions such as the individual's place of birth, address and whether the individual is taking any medication.
17. Based upon a thorough review of the videotape that was submitted for in camera inspection, it is found that: the requested videotapes do reveal the physical and mental condition of the arrestee; portions of the requested videotapes consist of police questioning and arrestee responses pertaining to the arrestee's medical condition; and portions of the requested videotapes also reveal identities of third parties who arrive at the RHPD to escort the arrested individual from the RHPD.
18. It is concluded based upon the particular facts of this case and review of the videotape submitted for in camera inspection by the respondent, that the requested videotapes are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 26, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
John Kulick
c/o Edward A. Peruta
P.O. Box 307
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Philip Schnabel, Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department, O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Public Safety Director and Town of Rocky Hill
c/o Curtis H. Roggi, Esq.
Roggi & Stuhlman
1160 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission