FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Mark J. Vlash,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-134
Stamford Police Department,
Respondent November 12, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 8, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 April 20, 1992, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to provide him access to certain files the respondent represented it would disclose to him on April 15, 1992.
3. Specifically, the complainant seeks access to the investigation of the December 16, 1971 shooting of his father, Nikolla Vlash, including any memos, audio tapes and other records pertinent to the investigation.
4. It is found that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the respondent provided to the complainant a partial record of the 21 year old investigation including approximately 134 pages, but that portions of those records were redacted by the respondent prior to such disclosure.
5. The respondent stated that the reason for the redaction of portions of the records at issue was the advice of counsel indicating that names of accused persons never arrested or prosecuted have a right to privacy based on the fact that they were not arrested or prosecuted within a one year period.
6. It is found that the reason proferred by the respondent in paragragh 5, above, does not constitute an exemption to the disclosure of public records under the FOI Act.
Docket #FIC 92-134 Page 2
7. It is found that no audio tapes concerning the investigation at issue exist.
8. It is concluded that the respondent failed to establish that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the FOI Act.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Within 30 days from the date of the final decision in this matter, the respondent shall review the records at issue to establish whether the existence of alleged criminal activity can be corroborated. To the extent such records cannot be so corroborated, those portions of the records may be destroyed by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of 1-20c, G.S., and the state records retention laws.
2. With respect to any portions of the records at issue not destroyed in accordance with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent shall thereafter forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of its record of the December 16, 1971 shooting investigation. The respondent may redact only the names of confidential informants to the extent such exist in the records retained by the respondent subsequent to the appropriate review as outlined, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 12, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-134 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:
Mark J. Vlash
26 Lee Street
Stamford, CT 06902
Stamford Police Department
805 Bedford Street
Stamford, CT 06901-1194
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission