FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Sandra Suite and Dennis Suite,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-362
Chief of Police, East Hartford Police Department,
Respondent June 23, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 4, 1993, at which time the complainants 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 December 8, 1992, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent denied their request for the following documents:
a. all civilian complaints filed since January 1, 1989 alleging police misconduct;
b. all related Office of Professional Standards [internal] investigations;
c. all related official responses from the department;
d. all records of police misconduct related to disciplinary actions against officers Curtis Stoldt and John Hoynoski; and
e. the East Hartford police department's policies and procedures relative to stopping a citizen in the course of investigations for interrogation [so-called "Terry stops"].
3. It is found that the complainants requested the documents described in paragraph 2, above, by letter dated November 20, 1992.
Docket #FIC 92-362 Page 2
4. It is found that the respondent notifed officers Stoldt and Hoynoski, and the president of I.B.P.O. Local #386, on November 24, 1992 of the complainants' request.
5. It is found that officers Stoldt and Hoynoski and the president of the local all objected to disclosure of the requested documents.
6. Is found that the respondent, based upon those objections, did not disclose the requested documents to the complainants.
7. It is found that the complainant Dennis Suite, a 15-year-old boy, was forcibly stopped by officers Stoldt and Hoynoski when he refused to stop and talk with the officers as they were searching for a juvenile who had committed a crime.
8. It is found that the complainant Dennis Suite and his mother Sandra Suite filed a civilian complaint against the officers, alleging the use of excessive force.
9. It is found that the East Hartford Office of Professional Standards investigated the civilian complaint, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain any allegation of misconduct by the officers, and that the investigative detention was permissible as a "Terry stop."
10. It is found that the complainants believe that there may be a pattern of improper forcible detention by the East Hartford police department, and intend to file an action claiming deprivation of civil rights, although no action has yet been filed.
11. The respondent maintains that the requested documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), as records in a personnel or similar file the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
12. With respect to that portion of the complaint described in paragraph 2.e, above, it is found that although the East Hartford police department maintains training materials relative to stopping a citizen for interrogation in the course of investigations, it does not have written policies and procedures on the subject.
13. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of such training materials, since such records were not reasonably understood to be within the scope of the complainants' request.
14. It is also concluded that the remainder of the requested documents, as described in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 92-362 Page 3
15. It is also concluded that the records described in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, above, are personnel or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. At the hearing, officers Stoldt and Hoynoski testified that they believed that disclosure of any of the requested records pertaining to them would not be in their best interests, and would invade their personal privacy by threatening their personal safety, jeopardizing their working environments, and subjecting them and their families to adverse publicity.
17. It is found that disclosure of the requested records would probably not be in the officers' best interests, since such disclosure could aid the complainants in their contemplated civil rights action.
18. It is also found, however, that the threat of a civil rights action for alleged police misconduct, and the publicity which might arise from that action, does not in itself create a reasonable expectation of privacy in the requested records.
19. It is also found that the respondent offered no credible evidence to prove that any officer's personal safety would be threatened by disclosure of the requested records, or that their work environments would be jeopardized.
20. It is also found that the respondent offered no other credible evidence to prove that disclosure of the requested records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
21. It is therefore concluded that the records described in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
22. The respondent also maintains that the complainants should seek the records through discovery in court.
23. It is found, however, that there is no civil action pending in which the complainants may currently exercise discovery rights.
24. The Commission notes that there is a long history of disclosure of internal investigative records under the Freedom of Information Act, and that even the union representative who testified for the respondent was unaware of any cases in which records of internal investigations have been permissibly withheld from the public.
25. The Commission therefore advises the respondent that any future determinations by him that disclosure of internal investigative reports would constitute an invasion of privacy pursuant to 1-20a(b), G.S., will be strictly scrutinized by the Commission.
Docket #FIC 92-362 Page 4
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 described in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 23, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-362 Page 5
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 described in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 23, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-362 Page 6
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:
Sandra Suite and Dennis Suite
c/o Michael E. Wolf, Esq.
Maria Luisa de Castro Foden
107 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Chief of Police, East Hartford Police Department
c/o Jose R. Ramirez, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission