FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Liz Dupont-Diehl and Journal Inquirer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-214
Chief of Police, East Hartford Police Department,
Respondent April 13, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 26, 1993, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, the respondent's motion to provide the records described in paragraph 12 of the findings, below, for in camera inspection was granted; and the records were provided to the Comission on October 27, 1993.
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 August 10, 1993, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their August 4, 1993 request for certain documents had been denied on August 6, 1993.
3. It is found that the complainants made a request by letter dated August 4, 1993 for the results of an internal investigation into an East Hartford police officer suspended from duty August 2 through August 6, 1993.
4. Specifically, the complainants requested the officer's name, copies of any internal and criminal investigations into any related incidents, records of any administrative hearings or action taken as a result, copies of any previous internal investigations concerning the officer, and any actions taken as a result of any previous investigations.
5. It is found that the complainant Dupont-Diehl was following up on an account published in the Hartford Courant concerning the suspension of an unnamed East Hartford police officer.
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 2
6. It is found that the officer had been the subject of an internal investigation by the department's office of professional standards.
7. It is found that, as a result of that investigation, the officer had been suspended from duty for violation of Section 4.3 of the police department's rules and regulations, which prohibits officers from engaging in any personal conduct or action which, if brought to the attention of the public, could result in justified criticism of the police department.
8. It is found that the respondent delegated the response to the complainants' August 4, 1993 request to the commanding officer of the office of professional standards.
9. It is found that, pursuant to 1-20a(b), G.S., the commanding officer notified the officer who was the subject of the investigation, and the officer's collective bargaining representative, of the request.
10. It is found that the officer and the collective bargaining representative objected to disclosure of the requested documents.
11. It is found that the commanding officer therefore declined to provide the requested documents by letter dated August 8, 1993.
12. It is found that the documents submitted for in camera inspection consist of:
a. a summary of the investigation conducted by the East Hartford office of professional standards; numbered as in camera documents 93-214-1 through 93-214-3;
b. nine exhibits annexed to the summary; numbered as in camera documents 93-214-4 through 93-214-15; and
c. two hearing exhibits, consisting of the charge against the officer, numbered as in camera document 93-214-16; and a stipulation of facts, numbered as in camera documents 93-214-17. (In camera document 93-214-18 is a copy of document 93-214-17.)
13. It is concluded that the documents submitted for in camera inspection are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 3
14. The respondent maintains that the requested records are not required to be disclosed pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
15. It is found that the requested records are similar to a personnel file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. The respondent maintains that disclosure of the requested records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy because the officer's conduct is related to a medical condition.
17. With respect to the complainants' request for the officer's name, it is found that his name was released by the East Hartford police department about one week after the complainant's request.
18. It is concluded that it is not objectively reasonable to expect that the name of a police officer suspended without pay after an internal investigation either could or should remain confidential.
19. It is also concluded that there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the identity of a suspended police officer.
20. It is also concluded that disclosing the name of an officer suspended from duty without pay after an internal investigation is not highly offensive to a reasonable person, and therefore would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly disclose the name of the suspended officer.
22. With rspect to the complainants' request for copies of any internal or criminal investigations of the suspended officer, it is found that the East Hartford police department conducted no criminal investigation, and the respondent has no records of a criminal investigation of the suspended officer.
23. It is also found that in camera documents 93-214-1 through 93-214-15 are records of an internal investigation of the suspended officer, and are thus responsive to a portion of the complainants' request.
24. It is found that in camera documents 93-214-1 through -3 describe the complaint against the suspended officer, summarize the investigative findings, make recommendations, and list the nine exhibits annexed, which are numbered as in camera documents 93-214-4 through 93-214-15.
25. It is also found that in camera documents 93-214-1 through -15 contain some information similar to what would be contained in a medical file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 4
26. It is concluded that there is a legitimate public interest in the records of a police officer's misconduct, where such misconduct results in an internal investigation of the officer and suspension without pay.
27. It is also concluded that, absent medical file information, disclosure of the in camera documents 93-214-1 through -15 would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
28. It is found that the medical information contained in the internal investigation records can be segregated from the non-medical information.
29. In particular, it is found that the following corresponds to medical information that may be segregated from the internal investigation records:
a. In camera documents 93-214-1: in the paragraph immediately following the word "INVESTIGATION," the first three words of line 21 (naming a medical provider); and the fifth and sixth words in line 23 (naming a medical provider).
b. In camera documents 93-214-1: in the second paragraph following the word "INVESTIGATION," the last two words of line 30 and the first two words of line 31 (naming a medical provider).
c. In camera document 93-214-2: the first full paragraph, consisting of lines 6 through 17 (describing a medical history).
d. In camera document 93-214-2: the third paragraph following the word "RECOMMENDATION," consisting of lines 40 through 43 (describing a medical diagnosis).
e. In camera document 93-214-3: lines 5 and 9 (naming a medical provider and identifying a medical record).
f. In camera document 93-214-5 in its entirety (describing a medical condition).
g. In camera document 93-214-6: in the second full paragraph, the eighth and ninth words in line 21 (naming a medical provider).
h. In camera document 93-214-6: the last two paragraphs, consisting of lines 30 through 48 (describing a medical history).
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 5
i. In camera document 93-214-7: the first paragraph, consisting of lines 1 through 6 (describing a medical condition).
j. In camera document 93-214-8: in the second paragraph, on line 17, the fifth, sixth, fourteenth and fifteenth words (identifying a medical provider).
k. In camera documents 93-214-9 and -10 in their entireties (describing a medical history and condition, and identifying a medical provider).
l. In camera document 93-214-11: line 11 (identifying a medical provider), and the full sentence that begins on line 16 and ends on line 17 (describing a medical history).
m. In camera document 93-214-12 in its entirety (comprising a medical record that also identifies a medical provider).
n. In camera document 93-214-14 in its entirety (comprising a medical record that also identifies a medical provider).
o. In camera document 93-214-15: in the first full paragraph, the fourth and fifth words of line 10 (identifying a medical provider).
p. In camera document 93-214-17: in the paragraph numbered "1," the last word of line 9 and the first word of line 10 (identifying a medical provider).
q. In camera document 93-214-18: in the paragraph numbered "1," the last word of line 9 and the first word of line 10 (identifying a medical provider).
30. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S. by not disclosing those portions of the internal investigation records that do not contain medical information.
31. With respect to the complainants' request for records of any administrative hearings or actions taken as a result of the internal investigation, it is found that in camera documents 93-214-16 through -18, which describe the charge against the officer and the factual stipulations in the case, are responsive to that portion of the request.
32. It is also found that the records described in paragraph 31, above, do not contain medical information.
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 6
33. It is concluded that there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the charge against the officer and the factual stipulations that underly the discipline imposed against the officer, that disclosure of such information would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and therefore that disclosure would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
34. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by not disclosing the records described in paragraph 31, above.
35. With respect to the complainants' request for records of previous internal investigations of the suspended officer, it is found that there have been no previous internal investigations.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the entire record of the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide a copy of the requested records to the complainant, with the medical information described in paragraph 29 of the findings, above, deleted.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-214 Page 7
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:
Liz Dupont-Diehl and Journal Inquirer
c/o Mr. Robert H. Boone
Journal Inquirer
306 Progress Drive
Manchester, CT 06040
Chief of Police, East Hartford Police Department
c/o Jose Ramirez, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission