FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Hendrik E. Maas,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-421

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety,

 

                                Respondent                          September 27, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 17, 1995, at which time the complainant 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.  It is found that by letter dated October 17, 1994, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with access to a copy of Internal Affairs ("I.A.") 92-105, an internal affairs investigation report concerning trooper David Slezak (hereinafter "the report").

 

                3.  It is found that on October 27, 1994 the respondent notified the complainant that a review of his request was being conducted and that he would be contacted shortly as to the outcome.

 

                4.  It is found that Slezak objected to the disclosure of the report on November 3, 1994, following notification by the respondent that a request for access had been made.

 

                5.  The respondent then denied the complainant's request on November 7, 1994, claiming disclosure would constitute an invasion of Slezak's privacy.

 

                6.  Having failed to gain access to the report the complainant appealed the denial to the Commission by letter dated November 28, 1994 and filed with the Commission on December 1, 1994.

 

Docket #FIC 94-421                                             Page 2

 

                7.  It is found that the report was prepared by the respondent's Internal Affairs Department ("I. A. department") following an investigation of a complaint filed by the complainant against Slezak alleging misconduct on the part of Slezak (hereinafter "the investigation").

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent maintains the investigation file which consists of records of allegations, various statements and the final report of the I. A. department.

 

                9.  It is concluded that the investigation file and report are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                10.  It is also concluded that the investigation file and records contained therein are similiar file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                11.  It is found that the investigation was completed in 1992 and the I. A. department found no misconduct on the part of Slezak.

 

                12.  The respondent and Slezak object to the release of the I. A. file and report and contend that disclosure would invade Slezak's privacy because it would lead to gossip, rumor and innuendo.

 

                13.  It is found however that disclosure of the I. A. file and the report which totally exonerates Slezak would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

                14.  Furthermore, it is found that there is a legitimate public interest in the conduct of police officers in their capacities as police officers.

 

                15.  It is also found that the respondent and Slezak offered only their generalized concern for privacy, but failed to prove a claim of exemption under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated   1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to provide the complainant with access to a copy of the report and file in I.A. investigation 92-105.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  The respondent shall immediately upon the receipt of the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with access to a copy of the records contained in I. A. investigation file 92-105.

 

Docket #FIC 94-421                                             Page 3

 

                2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all witnesses who provided statements in I. A. investigation 92-105.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 27, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-421                                             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:

Hendrik E. Maas

P.O. Box 583

Southbury, CT 06488

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Madeline A. Melchionne, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission