FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

James Bemis, Sr., Jacqueline Bemis and

Timothy Bemis,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1995-369

 

Commanding Officer, Troop E, State of

Connecticut, Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police and Legal Affairs

Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety,

 

                        Respondents                                                     September 25, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 29, 1996, at which time the complainants 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.         By letter of complaint, dated October 13, 1995 and filed on October 16, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying them access to inspect and copy the following records, pertaining to the September 29, 1993 arrest of the complainants, (hereinafter “arrest” or “the arrest”):

 

a.  video and audio tapes;

 

b.  records pertaining to the troopers and officers involved in the arrest, including records of court orders and reports of activity of the officers involved; and

 

c.  photographs and fingerprint cards prepared during the arrest process.

Docket #FIC 1995-369                                                                                   Page 2

 

 

3.         It is found that by letter dated June 30, 1995, the complainants, requested that the respondent commanding officer provide them with access to inspect and copy the records, described in paragraph 2., above (hereinafter “requested records”).

 

4.         Following a series of communications between the complainants and the respondents, the respondent legal affairs unit, by letters dated September 25 and October 10, 1995, denied the complainants’ request, claiming that the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(4), G.S.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondents also claimed that §1-19b(b), G.S., exempts disclosure of the requested records.

 

5.         It is found that the respondents maintain records responsive to the complainants’ request, described in paragraph 2., above, and that such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

6.         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.

 

7.         It is found that the criminal case against the complainants was disposed of in January 1995 when the prosecuting authority entered a nolle of all charges against the complainants.

 

8.         It is found that on February 20, 1996, the respondents provided the complainants with access to all of the requested records, with the exception of an audio tape recording, which was taped by trooper R. James Barnes in his vehicle, following the arrest of the complainants.

 

9.         It is found that the requested audio tape recording, described in paragraph 8, above, is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

 

10.       It is found that the respondents failed to prove that any of the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(b)(4) and 1-19b(b), G.S.

 

11.       It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when they failed to promptly provide the complainants with access to inspect and copy the requested records.

 

12.       The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this matter.

 

 

Docket #FIC 1995-369                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

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

 

1.         The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with a copy of the requested audio tape recording, as more fully described in paragraph 8 of the findings, above, if a copy of such tape recording has not already been provided.

 

2.         Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 1995-369                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

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:

 

James Bemis, Sr., Jacqueline Bemis and Timothy Bemis

c/o  Jacques J. Parenteau, Esq.

Greenberg & Parenteau, P.C.

P.O. Box 271

New London, CT 06320-0271

 

 

Commanding Officer, Troop E, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police and Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety

c/o  Sharon M. Hartley, Esq.

Stephen R. Sarnoski, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission