FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

George Gombossy, Dave Drury and The Hartford Courant,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-321

 

Alfred L. Shull, Chief of Police, Simsbury Police Department,

 

                                Respondent                          March 27, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 1996, 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.  It is found that by letter dated September 19, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with access to a copy of the police report and supporting documents, including statements, concerning the respondent's investigation of a February 11, 1995 incident at a teenage party attended by middle school age students (hereinafter "requested records").

 

                3.  It is found that the respondent denied the request by letter dated September 25, 1995.

 

                4.  Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated September 27, 1995, filed this appeal with the Commission on September 28, 1995, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them access to the requested records.  The complainants requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

                5.  The respondent contends that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B), 1-19(b)(3)(C) and 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.

 

                6.  Section 1-19(b)(3)(B), (C) and (E), G.S., permit the nondisclosure of:

 

Docket #FIC 95-321                                             Page 2

 

                                (3)  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 (B) signed statements of witnesses, (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action, (E) arrest records of a juvenile, which shall also include any investigatory files, concerning the arrest of such juvenile, compiled for law enforcement purposes.

 

                7.  It is found that on February 11, 1995, the respondent's department investigated an incident which occurred at a party in Simsbury attended by middle school age students (hereinafter "the investigation").

 

                8.  It is found that as a result of the investigation several juveniles were arrested and referred to the Juvenile Ccourt.

 

                9.  It is found that in connection with the investigation the respondent's department compiled an investigatory file which contains a case report, statements of witnesses, names of interviewees, a chronology of the investigation, handwritten notes, waivers of constitutional rights by juveniles and referrals to the Juvenile Court.

 

                10.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 9, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                11.  It is found however, that the requested records constitute arrest records of juveniles and the investigatory file concerning the arrest of such juveniles within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.

 

                12.  Consequently it is concluded that the requested records are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.

 

                13.  In light of the Commission's findings in paragraphs 11 and 12, above, it is not necessary to address the respondent's further claims of exemption.

 

                14.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-15 and 19(a), G.S., when he failed to provide the complainants with a copy of the requested records.

 

Docket #FIC 95-321                                                  Page 3

 

                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 March 27, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-321                                             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:

George Gombossy, Dave Drury and The Hartford Courant Avon Bureau

56 East Main Street

Avon, CT 06001

 

Alfred L. Shull, Chief of Police, Simsbury Police Department

933 Hopmeadow Street

Simsbury, CT 06070

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission