FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Kristin Sherwood,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-117
Chief of Police, Stonington Police Department,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 29, 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 dated March 30, 1992, the complainant requested copies of any records and files the respondent's department has regarding a sexual assault against her in Louisiana on or about April 20, 1991.
3. By letter filed with this Commission on April 8, 1992, the complainant alleged denial of the request by way of non-response by the respondent.
4. It is found that by letter dated April 10, 1992, the respondent denied the complainant's request.
5. It is found that on September 19, 1991, the complainant's attorney filed a discovery action in New London superior court to acquire the records at issue from the respondent. On March 30, 1992, Judge Hendel rendered a bench decision granting the respondent's motion to dismiss on the basis that the complainant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by seeking these records through the FOI Commission.
6. It is found that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent argued that because no arrest has been made, any suspect or named witnesses could be embarrassed. It also claimed that although
Docket #FIC 92-117 Page 2
the respondent has done all it can to assist in the investigation, the case is still "pending" because Louisiana authorities are solely in control of when to conclude it. The respondent argued that its policy is to withhold records of pending investigations.
8. It is concluded that the respondent's arguments outlined in paragraph 7, above, fail to state an exemption for the disclosure of public records under the FOI Act.
9. The respondent claimed that if the requested information is released, certain witnesses could conceivably make themselves unavailable if called to testify on the matter.
10. It is found, however, that there are enough willing witnesses involved in the case that the prosecution of a case would not be prejudiced if certain reluctant witnesses were to make themselves unavailable to testify.
11. It is concluded, therefore, that the records at issue are not exempt under the provisions of 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
12. It is concluded that the respondent's failure to disclose the records at issue to the complainant constitutes 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 the complainant with copies of the records at issue.
2. In its discretion, this Commission permits the respondent to redact the names of witnesses or other third parties the disclosure of which, in its judgment, could impede the prosecution of a case in the instant matter.
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 92-117 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:
Kristin Sherwood
c/o Attorney Raymond T. Trebisacci
O'Brien, Shafner, Bartinik
P.O. Drawer 929
Groton, CT 06340
Chief of Police, Stonington Police Department
c/o Attorney Susan B. Handy
Conway, Londregan & McNamara
P.O. Box 396
Mystic, CT 06355
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission