FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Jim Sweeney and Cablevision News 12,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 91-367
Chief of Police, Norwalk Police Department,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 4, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. On September 29, 1992, the Commission subpoenaed the records requested by the complainant, as described in paragraph 3 of the findings, below. Some of the subpoenaed records were provided on October 9, 1992, other records were submitted on October 21, 1992. Findings as to the completeness of these submisions are made below.
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 November 26, 1991, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent denied their request for certain records.
3. It is found that the complainants by letter dated November 4, 1991 requested from the respondent the following documents:
a. a list of all complaints/charges or similarly characterized actions registered against Sergeant Thomas Mattera of the Norwalk Police Department, including:
i. all complaints registered by the public;
ii. the date complaints were registered;
iii. the nature of the complaints; and
iv. the outcome of the investigation into those complaints;
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 2
b. a list of any and all disciplinary actions taken against Sergeant Mattera, including:
i. the dates and reasons why the actions were taken; and
ii. the results of those actions; and
c. any and all records of any special classes or training Sergeant Mattera had taken while a member of the Norwalk Police Department, including such classes as "sensitivity training" or similarly classified classes or courses, including:
i. the dates classes or courses were taken;
ii. where they were taken;
iii. the reason they were assigned; and
iv. the instructor's determination or evaluation of Sergeant Mattera's participation.
4. It is found that by letter dated November 13, 1991, the respondent denied the complainant's request on the grounds that the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
5. It is found that the respondent notified Sergeant Mattera of the complainants' request.
6. It is found that Sergeant Mattera objected to disclosure of the requested records by an affidavit dated April 1, 1992.
7. It is found that Sergeant Mattera was informed of the hearing on this matter, and chose not to attend.
8. At the hearing, the respondent indicated that he knew what records were requested, and objected to those records being provided to the Commission for in camera inspection.
9. Notwithstanding the respondent's objection, on September 29, 1992 the Commission subpoenaed copies of the following documents, to be submitted on October 9, 1992 for in camera inspection:
a. any complaints or charges against Sergeant Thomas Mattera;
b. any disciplinary action taken against Sergeant Thomas Mattera; and
c. any special classes or training taken by Sergeant Thomas Mattera while a member of the Norwalk Police Department.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 3
10. On October 9, 1992, the respondent provided copies of eight (8) disciplinary files concerning Sergeant Mattera, designated by the Commission as follows:
a. documents numbered 91-367-12-23-80-1 through 91-367-12-23-80-3, concerning what the respondent designated as a 12-23-1980 incident;
b. documents numbered 91-367-12-26-80-1 through 91-367-12-23-80-8, concerning a 12-26-1980 incident;
c. documents numbered 91-367-02-04-1982-1 through 91-367-02-04-1982-7, concerning an incident for which charges were preferred against Sergeant Mattera on 02-04-1982;
d. documents numbered 91-367-82-38129-1 through 91-367-82-38129-32, concerning an internal investigation designated by the respondent as case number 82-38129.
e. documents numbered 91-367-02-04-83-1 through 91-367-02-04-83-129, concerning an internal investigation designated by the respondent as case number 82-054 IA;
f. documents numbered 91-367-83-3660-1 through 91-367-83-3660-21, concerning an internal investigation designated by the respondent as H.Q. Case #83-3660;
g. documents numbered 91-367-83-012-1 through 91-367-83-012-19, concerning an internal investigation designated by the respondent as I.A.D. Case #83-012-I.A.; and
h. documents numbered 91-367-83-4450-1 through 91-367-83-4450-42, concerning an internal affairs investgation designated by the respondent as case number 83-4450.
11. On October 21, 1992, the respondent submitted to the Commission additional documents, numbered by the Commission as 91-367-TR-1 through 91-367-TR-189, consisting of training documents pertaining to Sergeant Mattera, and documents numbered by the Commission as 91-367-2-27-92-1 through 91-367-2-27-92-12, concerning an internal investigation of Sergeant Mattera which resulted in a 2-27-92 letter notifying Mattera of the charges to be answered.
12. It is concluded that the documents referenced in paragraphs 10 and 11, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 4
13. It is found that documents numbered 91-367-12-23-80-1 and -2 consist of a summary of an investigation into alleged misconduct by Sergeant Mattera on November 14, 1980 involving the detention of two individuals.
14. It is concluded that the documents identified in paragraph 13, above, are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
15. It is found the document numbered 91-367-12-23-80-3 relates to a different disciplinary matter concerning Sergeant Mattera.
16. It is also found that the document identified in paragraph 15, above, is not responsive to or within the scope of the complainants' request.
17. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-12-26-80-1 and 91-367-12-26-80-3 through -8 concern disciplinary action following an investigation into a motor vehicle accident involving Sergeant Mattera.
18. It is found that document numbered 91-367-12-26-80-2 concerns the discipline imposed upon Sergeant Mattera as a result of the incident described in paragraph 13, above, and is responsive to and within the scope of the complainant's request.
19. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-12-26-80-6 and -7 are the completed reports on the outcome of the respondent's investigation into the incident described in paragraph 17, above, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
20. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-12-26-80-1 and -2 are notices to Sergeant Mattera of the discipline imposed on him as a result of the investigation, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
21. It is found that the remainder of the documents concerning the motor vehicle accident are investigative reports, such as interviews, concerning Sergeant Mattera's conduct regarding the motor vehicle accident.
22. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-02-04-1982-1 through -7 are the Norwalk Police Local 1727 brief in case number 8182-A-728, involving the discipline of Sergeant Mattera for the manner in which he guarded the victim of a shooting.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 5
23. It is also found that there are no other documents submitted by the respondent which concern the incident described in paragraph 22, above.
24. It is concluded that the documents identified in paragraph 23, above, are responsive to and within the scope of the the complainants' request.
25. It is found that the documents numbered as 91-367-82-38129-1 through -32 concern an internal investigation into a complaint about Sergeant Mattera's conduct in the investigation of a motor vehicle accident.
26. It is found that documents numbered 91-367-82-38129-11 through -14 are the complaint against Sergeant Mattera, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
27. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-82-38129-31 and -32 are a memorandum of findings summarizing the outcome of the investigation concerning the complaint identified in paragraph 26, above.
28. It is found that the remainder of the documents relating to the complaint identified in paragraph 26 above are internal investigative records, chiefly records of interviews with the complainant, Sergeant Mattera, and other witnesses, and the motor vehicle accident report itself.
29. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-02-04-1983-1 through -129 concern an internal investigation into Sergeant Mattera's conduct while investigating a shoplifting complaint.
30. It is found that documents numbered 91-367-02-04-1983-4 through -20 comprise a memorandum of findings report that summarizes the nature of the complaint and the outcome of the investigation referenced in paragraph 29, above, and is within the scope of and responsive to the the complainants' request.
31. It is found that the remainder of the documents concerning the shoplifting investigation incident are internal investigatory records such as statements of witnesses and transcripts of interviews.
32. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-83-3660-1 through -21 and 91-367-83-012-1 through 19 are records of an internal investigation into the conduct of Sergeant Mattera during the investigation of a motor vehicle accident.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 6
33. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-83-3660-1 through -4, 91-367-83-3660-15 and 91-367-83-012-16 comprise a memorandum of findings report, internal investigation reports, and a disciplinary recommendation concerning the conduct referenced in paragraph 35, above, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
34. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-83-3660-17 and -18, and 91-367-83-012-15 and -16, comprise two complaints about the conduct referenced in paragraph 32, above, and are reponsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
35. It is found that the remainder of the documents concerning the conduct referenced in paragraph 32, above, are internal investigatory records such as statements, transcripts of interviews, accident reports and notices.
36. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-83-4450-1 through -42 are records of an internal investigation into Sergeant Mattera's conduct in an arrest for the sale of a controlled substance.
37. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-83-4450-12 through -16 comprise a memorandum of findings report concerning the investigation into the conduct referenced in paragraph 36, above, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
38. It is found that the remainder of the documents concerning the conduct referenced in paragraph 36, above, are internal investigatory records into Sergeant Mattera's conduct, such as statements of witnesses and transcripts of interviews, notices, and internal memoranda; and investigatory records of the underlying crime, such as incident reports, witness statements, Miranda waivers, and property inventories.
39. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-1 through -12 are records concerning an internal investigation into Sergeant Mattera's conduct during a September 1991 incident.
40. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-1 and -2 are a letter from the respondent to Sergeant Mattera informing him of charges against him, and are within the scope of the complainants' request.
41. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-3 through -6 comprise a summary of the results of the Norwalk Police Commission Trial Board's hearing into the conduct described in paragraph 40, above, including the discipline imposed, and are within the scope of the complainants' request.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 7
42. It is found that the document numbered 91-367-2-27-92-7 is a letter to Sergeant Mattera informing him of the terms of his probation, and is within the scope of the complainants' request.
43. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-8 and -9 comprise a civilian complaint against Sergeant Mattera, and are responsive to and within the scope of the complainants' request.
44. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-10 and -11 are copies of the documents numbered 91-367-2-27-92-1 and -2, and that the document numbered 91-367-2-27-92-12 is a copy of the document numbered 91-367-2-27-92-3.
45. It is found that the documents numbered 91-367-TR-1 through -185 comprise records of Sergeant Mattera's training in a wide variety of areas, including weapons training, search and seizure, drug smuggling, fraud, rape crisis, cultural awareness, citizen services, communications with citizens, patrol procedure, domestic violience, interview and interrogation methods, techniques for juvenile officers, crime scene processing, bomb threats, crowd control, supervision, human relations, tactical operations, police and law, oxygen equipment, sniper training, motor vehicle stops, hazardous materials recognition, raid and entry, hostage negotiation and tactics, evidence gathering, command post training, and state's attorney law enforcement training.
46. It is found that the training records referenced in paragraph 45, above, contain the names of the training, some descriptions of the training, the hours of the training, some costs of the training, and the dates of the training.
47. It is found that the training records referenced in paragraph 45, above, do not contain reasons for the assignment of training, and do not contain evaluations other than records of firearm proficiency, scores on firearms knowledge tests, and probationary evaluations dating from 1980 and 1981.
48. It is also found that the documents included among those numbered 91-367-TR-1 through -185 include some written test materials concerning firearms, and firearms receipts and repair/inspection records.
49. It is found that there are no records of "sensitivity training" within or referred to in the documents submitted to the Commission.
50. It is also found that there is no reasonable basis for determining which of the training records constitute "special" training within the meaning of the complainants' request.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 8
51. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide training records to the complainants.
52. It is found that the records described in paragraphs 14, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, and 43, above, all found to be within the scope of and responsive to the complainants' request, are records of the respondent's investigations into the basic competence of Sergeant Mattera.
53. It is concluded that the records referenced in paragraph 52, above, are personnel or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
54. It is found that the records described in paragraph 52, above, are records of the respondent's investigation into allegations of a police officer's fitness for office, competence in the investigation of crime, truthfulness in the performance of official duties, respect for the public, and endangerment of the public.
55. It is found that the records described in paragraph 52, above, relate directly the legitimate concern that the public be protected against those it hires to protect them.
56. It is also found that the records described in paragraph 52, above, not only document the officer's fitness for duty, but document the respondent's performance in investigating its own officers.
57. It is found that Sergeant Mattera had a subjective expectation of privacy in the records described in paragraph 52, above.
58. It is concluded, however, that society is not prepared to accept as reasonable an expectation that records of an investigation of a police officer's misconduct in the performance of his duties will remain private.
59. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a) by failing to provide the complainants with copies of the records referenced in paragraph 52, above.
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 to the complainants copies of the records referenced in paragraph 52 of the findings, above.
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 9
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may mask or otherwise redact or delete the names, addresses, telephone numbers and other personally identifiable information concerning complainants or witnesses.
3. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-367 Page 10
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:
Jim Sweeney
Cablevision News 12
28 Cross Street
Norwalk, CT 06851
Chief of Police, Norwalk Police Department
c/o Attorney Jeffry Spahr
Office of the City Attorney
P.O. Box 798
Norwalk, CT 06856-0798
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission