FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
---|---|---|---|
In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
Steven Edelman, | |||
Complainants | |||
against | Docket #FIC 1997-198 | ||
Kenneth H. Kirschner,
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Susan Revoir, Supervisor, Reports & Records Division, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, |
|||
Respondents | May 27, 1998 |
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 14, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, 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 dated May 30, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondents furnish him with copies of police report K96-127571, a report relating to a perjury investigation conducted by Detective Sergeant Steven Fields of Troop K in Colchester of James Abrams or Donald Schultz or both (the requested record).
3. By letter dated June 9, 1997, the respondents declined to provide a copy of the requested record to the complaint, citing §1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., as legal basis for their decision.
4. By letter dated June 16, 1997, and filed on June 17, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission. By an amended complaint dated and filed on July 11, 1997, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to provide him with a copy of the requested record, by charging too much for a document, and by requiring payment before looking for a document. The complainant also requested that the Commission perform an in camera inspection of the requested record and assess a civil penalty against the respondents.
5. At the hearing, the Commission ordered submission of the requested record for an in camera inspection, and immediately afterwards, the respondents filed the requested record with the Commission as provided by the Regulations of State Agencies.
6. Section 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides that:
(n)othing in the Freedom of Information Act 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 the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations [of criminal activity] .
7. Section 29-10b, G.S., provides that the respondent commissioner shall, during the relevant time period, charge eight dollars for each search of record files made pursuant to a request for a copy.
8. Based upon an in camera inspection of the requested record by the Commission, it is found that the requested record does contain uncorroborated allegations of criminal activity.
9. It is found that the complainant was assessed an eight dollar search charge, even though he was not provided a copy of the requested record.
10. It is therefore concluded that, pursuant to the provisions of §1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., the requested record is not subject to mandatory disclosure by the respondents, and the respondents did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., when they declined to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested record.
11. It is also concluded that no provision of the FOIA supersedes the provisions of §29-10b, G.S., which established a search charge of eight dollars in cases where no document is produced. Accordingly, the fee assessed as found at paragraph 9, above, was proper and lawful.
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 May 27, 1998.
_________________________ Doris V. Luetjen Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Steven Edelman Frog Pond Windham Center, CT 06280
Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Susan Revoir, Supervisor, Reports & Records Division, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety c/o Atty. Robert Fiske Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105
c/o Lynn D. Wittenbrink Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105
__________________________ Doris V. Luetjen Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-198/FD/tcg/05291998