FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Frank Faraci, Jr.
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-99
Middletown Police Department, Mayor of Middletown,
and Middletown City Attorney
Respondent February 2, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 22, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated March 14, 1994, requested the following records (hereinafter "requested records") from the respondent mayor:
a. all statements, supplemental reports and other related documents, including the case number, recommended and actual action taken by the respondent Police Department and the person who made the final decision within the respondent Police Department, regarding a January 1994 complaint filed by Judith Pozzetti against Frank Violissi and Amy Pear, employees of the respondent Middletown Police Department;
b. civilian complaints and disciplinary action against Violissi and Pear, within the past ten years;
c. settlements and/ or disposed of cases involving Violissi and Pear; and
d. all overtime sheets regarding overtime worked by Violissi and Pear, within the past ten years.
Docket #FIC 94-99 Page 2
3. It is found that the respondent Police Department denied the complainant's request by letter dated March 22, 1994 claiming that the records are not disclosable pursuant to 1-19(b)(2) and 1-20a, G.S.
4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant by letter of complaint dated March 28, 1994 and filed with the Commission on March 30, 1994, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to the requested records.
5. It is found that included in the complainant's March 28 letter of complaint to the FOI Commission is an additional record not included in the complainant's March 14 records request, described more fully in paragraph 2a. through 2d., above, and therefore not at issue in this case.
6. It is found that on March 22, 1994 Violissi and Pear objected to the disclosure of the requested records claiming that disclosure would constitute an invasion of their privacy.
7. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides that except as otherwise provided by federal law or state statute all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency shall be public records, and every person shall have the right to inspect or receive a copy of such records.
8. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
9. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., allows for the non-disclosure of "personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."
10. It is found that the respondent police department maintains records responsive to the complainant's request in two types of files a) an investigation file and b) the personnel files of Violissi and Pear.
11. It is found that the records maintained in the personnel files constitute personnel file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the records contained in the investigation file constitute personnel, medical or similiar file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. In addition, the respondent failed to prove that any of the requested records if disclosed, would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, or that any federal law or state statute precluded their disclosure.
Docket #FIC 94-99 Page 3
14. Pursuant to the teachings of Perkins v. FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1994) and Kureczka v. FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 271 (1994), the invasion of personal privacy exemption only precludes disclosure when the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public interest and is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
15. It is found that disclosure of the requested information would not be highly offensive to the reasonable person.
16. It is also found that the records requested pertain to legitimate matters of public interest.
17. It is therefore concluded that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), and further that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide access to the requested records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall immediately provide the complainants with access to inspect and/or copy the requested records as described in paragraph 2a. through 2d. of the findings, above.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may first redact the home addresses, telephone numbers and any information pertaining to Violissi's and Pear's families or medical history.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
4. The Commission notes that although the complainant's records request for federal, state or city grants used or given to the Street Crime Unit of the respondent Police Department was not dealt with in this case, in general, records of that type a are disclosable unless specifically exempt by federal law or state statute.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-99 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:
FRANK FARACI, JR.
c/o Ralph E. Wilson, Esq.
137 South Main Street
Middletown, CT 06457
MIDDLETOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, MAYOR OF MIDDLETOWN AND MIDDLETOWN CITY ATTORNEY
c/o Timothy Lynch, Esq.
Middletown City Attorney's Office
245 DeKoven Drive
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457-1300
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission