FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Richard L. Judd and New
Britain Board of Police Commissioners,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-138
Commissioner, State of
Connecticut Department
of Public Safety, Division of
State Police, and James Taylor,
Respondents February 15, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 6, 1995, at which time the complainants and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. At the
hearing on this matter, state trooper James Taylor was made a party to this
matter at his request.
After consideration of the entire record, the
following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The
respondent commissioner is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2. By letter
dated March 17, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent
commissioner provide them with a copy of the "Taylor-Spranzo"
internal investigation report.
3. By letter
dated April 5, 1995, the respondent commissioner denied the complainants'
request, stating that "pending investigations are not subject to
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."
4. By letter
dated April 20, 1995, and filed April 27, 1995, the complainants appealed to
the Commission and alleged that the respondent commissioner violated the
Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying their request.
5. It is
found that in New Britain, on May 2, 1993, the respondent Taylor, a state
trooper, was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a state
police cruiser off-duty, which resulted in the death of one Lorraine Spranzo.
#FIC 95-138 Page
2
6. It is found
that the respondent commissioner conducted an internal affairs investigation
into the accident described in paragraph 5, above, and prepared a report
identified as IA# 93-049, which was submitted to the Commission for in camera
inspection.
7. It is
found that the IA# 93-049 report is a public record within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
8. It is
found that the IA# 93-049 report was completed in May 1993 and forwarded to the
respondent Taylor's attorney and a state's attorney's office at that time, but
remains unsigned.
9. The
respondent commissioner claims that the requested report is exempt from
disclosure until disciplinary hearings are conducted and concluded pursuant to
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 105 S. Ct. 1487 (1985), because the
report is subject to change following such hearings.
10. It is
found that the respondent Taylor's disciplinary hearing had originally been
scheduled for May 21, 1993, but that the hearing was postponed and has not been
rescheduled as of the date of the hearing on this matter.
11. It is
found that the Loudermill case cited by the respondent does not state an
exemption to the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act; and further, that any
changes to the completed report could be issued in a supplemental report.
12. The
respondent commissioner also maintains that the requested report is exempt from
disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(C) and 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
13. Section
1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S., permits the nondisclosure 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 the 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."
(Emphasis added.)
14. It is
found that the respondent Taylor was arrested in connection with the accident
referenced in paragraph 5, above, and that the criminal case against him was
disposed of in October 1995.
#FIC 95-138 Page
3
15. It is
found that the requested report was not compiled in connection with the
detection or investigation of crime, but rather in connection with an internal
police personnel investigation to determine whether employment discipline was
warranted.
16. It is
further found that a prospective law enforcement action was pending at the time
of the complainants' request, but that the respondent commissioner failed to
prove that disclosure of the requested report would have been prejudicial to
such action.
17. It is
therefore found that the respondent commissioner failed to prove that the
requested report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S.
18. Section
1-19(b)(4), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of:
"records pertaining to strategy and negotiations
with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency
is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or
otherwise settled." (Emphasis
added.)
19. Section
1-18a(h)(3), G.S., defines "pending litigation" as "the agency's
consideration of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal
right."
20. It is
found that the respondent commissioner's intended disciplinary action against
the respondent Taylor constitutes pending litigation within the meaning of
1-18a(h)(3), G.S.
21. It is
found, based upon an in camera review of the IA# 93-049 report, that it
consists primarily of witness interviews, statements and other evidence
gathered during the course of the investigation and does not pertain to
strategy or negotiations with respect to the litigation described in paragraph
20, above.
22. It is
therefore found that the respondent commissioner failed to prove that the
requested report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
23.
Consequently, it is concluded that by failing to provide the complainant
with a copy of the IA# 93-049 report, the respondent commissioner violated the
provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.
#FIC 95-138 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 commissioner shall immediately provide the complainant with a copy
of the requested IA# 93-049 report, without charge.
2.
Henceforth, the respondent commissioner shall strictly comply with the
provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-138 Page
5
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:
Richard L. Judd and New
Britain Board of Police Commissioners
c/o Anita D. Cobb, Esq.
New Britain Corporation
Counsel
27 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
Commissioner, State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police
c/o Ann E. Lynch, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
James Taylor, Intervenor
c/o Paul J. McQuillan, Esq.
165 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06050
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission