FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
John DeRay,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-75
Chief of Police, Wethersfield Police Department,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 25, 1992 and October 20, 1992, at which times the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing into this matter, the state's attorney requested party status, which status had been granted.
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 filed with this Commission on February 28, 1992, the complainant alleged that on February 24, 1992, the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act by refusing to release certain records and tapes to him.
3. It is found that by letter dated February 20, 1992, the complainant requested of the respondent a duplicate tape of video camcordings and jail cell monitoring from the time of his arrival through his release at the respondent's department; tapes from patrol vehicles and headquarters pertaining to his arrest; and police reports pertaining to his arrest.
4. It is found that by letter dated February 24, 1992, the respondent denied the complainant's February 20, 1992 request.
5. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant withdrew all portions of his complaint with the exception of that relating to a 24-hour audio tape made by the Wethersfield police department during the time he was under arrest for a drunk driving charge.
6. It is found that the tape described in paragraph 5, above, is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 92-75 Page 2
7. The state's attorney claims that the tape at issue is exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
8. It is found that, other than the state's attorney's mere representation, no evidence was offered to show that the tape at issue was not otherwise available to the public and would prejudice a prospective law enforcement action.
9. The state's attorney also claims that the tape at issue is exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
10. It is found that no evidence was offered to establish that the tape at issue pertains to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or litigation.
11. It is concluded that the record at issue is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B) and 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
12. It is also concluded that 1-19b(b), G.S., is not applicable under the facts of this case, as the state's attorney so claimed at the hearing into this matter.
13. Finally, without explanation, the state's attorney cited 1-19c and 1-20b, G.S., as exemptions applicable to the tape at issue. The Commission finds those sections irrelevant and finds no facts to support such a position.
14. It is found however that on March 27, 1992, the superior court entered an order granting the complainant's motion for preservation and production of materials including the record at issue.
15. Although the facts of the aforementioned order were not operative at the time of the complainant's request and accordingly do not exempt the record from public disclosure, this Commission declines as a matter of discretion to exercise its jurisdiction in this case as a matter of comity with the superior court.
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.
2. This Commission notes with disappointment that the parties' failure to work with the complainant to resolve this matter quickly and efficiently at the time of his initial request led to the unnecessary waste of the state's resources by the state's attorney's office and this Commission. This
Docket #FIC 92-75 Page 3
Commission wishes to discourage such waste especially in economic times where state resources are often insufficient to carry out the performance of essential governmental functions.
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 92-75 Page 4
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 DeRay
1078 New Britain Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06110
Chief of Police
Wethersfield Police Department
505 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109
State's Attorney's Office
c/o Assistant State's Attorney Peter W. Soulsby
125 Columbus Boulevard
New Britain, CT 06051
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission