FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Josh Kovner and New Haven Register,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 95-47

 

Middlebury Police Department,

 

                        Respondent                  November 8, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 29, 1995, 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 dated February 24, 1995 and filed with the Commission on February 27, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI")Act by denying them access to a copy of a "routine report" concerning a February 18, 1995 incident at Artillery Road, Middlebury.

 

            3.  It is found that on February 24, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with access to a copy of a police report concerning the incident identified in paragraph 2, above, (hereinafter "report").

 

            4.  It is found that on February 24, 1995, the respondent provided the complainants with a "police-blotter entry" concerning the incident but refused to provide access to the report claiming that it contained uncorroborated allegations that an individual engaged in criminal activity.

 

            5.  The respondent claims that the report in question is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(C) and 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.

 

            6.  It is concluded that the requested report is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 95-47                             Page 2

 

            7.  Section 1-19(b)(3), G.S., states, in pertinent part:

 

            "Nothing in section . . 1-19 . . shall be construed to require disclosure of records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of . . . (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action . . . or (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c...."

 

            8. Section 1-20c, G.S., states, in pertinent part:

 

            ". . . records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records.  If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records."

 

            9.  The report was submitted for an in camera inspection on October 3, 1995 and was identified by the Commission as in camera inspection document #s 95-47-1 through 95-47-4, consisting of one single-page document entitled "Administrative and Office Segment", one single-page document entitled "Victim Segment", one single-page document entitled "Offender Segment" and one-single page document entitled "Detail Segment."

 

            10.  It is found that the report is part of the file of the state's attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven in a murder case.

 

            11.  It is further found that such record may be used in the prosecution of that case and its disclosure now might be prejudicial to a prospective law enforcement action.

 

Docket #FIC 95-47                             Page 3

 

            12.  Consequently, it is concluded that the report is now exempt from public disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S., and that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide the complainants with a copy of such report.

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-47                             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:

Josh Kovner and New Haven Register

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

Middlebury Police Department

c/o Dana A. D'Angelo, Esq.

Smith & Smith

459 Middlebury Road

P.O. Box 1263

Middlebury, CT 06762

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission