FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Mabel Diamond,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-87
Records Division, East Hartford Police Department,
Respondent September 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 27, 1992, 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 filed with this Commission on March 13, 1992, it was alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act on March 4, 1992 by denying a request for access to and copies of a recent arrest report, prior arrest records, and any affidavit in support of the recent arrest warrant for one Frank Cox.
3. Immediately prior to the hearing into this matter, the respondent agreed to provide to the complainant a copy of the prior arrest records of Frank Cox and the Uniform Arrest report of Frank Cox in satisfaction of the first two requests identified in paragraph 2, above.
4. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant also contended that the scope of the complaint was intended to include certain police incident reports.
5. It is concluded that the issue of incident reports was not fairly raised within the scope of the complaint under the facts of this case.
6. Accordingly, the sole issue remaining for determination in this case concerns the request for affidavits in support of the recent arrest warrant for Frank Cox.
7. It is found that an affidavit as described in paragraph
Docket #FIC 92-87 Page 2
6, above, does exist in the hands of the respondent and is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
8. It is also found that the records identified in paragraphs 6 and 7, above, include identifying information that would disclose the names and addresses of victims of sexual assault or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals or an attempt thereof within the meaning of 1-18(b)(3)(E), G.S.
9. It is also found that the victims referred to in paragraph 8, above, are minors.
10. It is concluded that, no other exemption being applicable to the case at hand, the respondent's failure to disclose to the complainant the requested records with that information identified in paragraph 8, above, redacted is a violation of 1-19(a), G.S.
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 a copy of the record identified in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the findings, above, after redacting the names, addresses and any other identifying information that in the respondent's judgment leads to an identification of minor victims.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-87 Page 3
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:
Mabel Diamond
c/o Attorney Mark V. Connolly
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
Records Division, East Hartford Police Department
c/o Attorney Jose R. Ramirez
East Hartford Corporation Counsel
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission