|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Michael
W. Cahill, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-161 |
|
Chief,
Police Department, Town of Hamden; and
Police Department, Town of Hamden, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September
22, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter
was heard as a contested case on May 26, 1999 at which time the complainant and
the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
Carmen Riccitelli was granted party status pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S., (formerly
1-21i(b)(1), G.S.). The records at
issue were reviewed in camera.
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 §1-200(1), G.S., (formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.).
2. It is
found that by letter dated March 11, 1999, the complainant requested that the
respondent chief provide him with a copy of a complaint filed during 1992 by
Stephanie Joseph with the town of Hamden.
3. It is
found that on March 30, 1999 the respondents notified Carmen Riccitelli, the
deputy police chief, of the complainant’s request and gave him an opportunity
to object to the release of the requested record.
4. It is
found that Riccitelli objected to the release of the record on March 30, 1999,
following which the respondents denied the complainant’s request by letter
dated March 30, 1999.
5. By letter
dated and filed on April 1, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission
alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act
by denying him a copy of the requested record.
6. It is
found that the respondents maintain records that are responsive to the
complainant’s request (hereinafter “requested records”).
7. Section
1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), provides in
relevant part that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…shall be
public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records
promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such
records….”
8. It is
concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.).
9. However, §1-210(b)(2), G.S., (formerly
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.), permits
the nondisclosure of personnel, medical or similar files the disclosure of
which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
10. It is
found that the requested records constitute “similar files” within the meaning
of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., (formerly
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.).
11. Pursuant
to Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993),
the appropriate test when examining a claim of exemption pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., (formerly
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.), is as
follows, first the information sought must constitute “personnel or medical
files and similar files” and second, two elements must be met: the information
sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and such
information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
12.
Following the hearing in this matter, the respondents submitted the
records at issue to the Commission and an in camera inspection
was conducted. The in camera
records have been designated IC# 1999-161-1 through 1999-061-110.
13. It is
found that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of
public concern within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
14. It is
also found that the information sought is highly offensive to a reasonable
person because it contains the kind of intimate details of a person’s life that
are normally private matters, within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
15. It is
therefore, concluded that the in camera records are permissively
exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., (formerly
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.).
16. In light of the conclusion reached in
paragraph 15, above, it is unnecessary to address the respondents’ further
claims of exemption.
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
September
22, 1999.
_________________________
Melanie
R. Balfour
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:
Michael
W. Cahill
43
Trumbull Street
New
Haven, CT 06511
Chief,
Police Department,
Town
of Hamden; and
Police
Department, Town of Hamden
c/o
Atty. Joshua A. Winnick
Hamden
Town Attorney
2372
Whitney Avenue
Hamden,
CT 06518
Carmen
Riccitelli
c/o
Atty. John F. Riley, Jr.
Law
Offices of Jack O’Donnell
PO
Box 1848
New
Haven, CT 06508-1848
__________________________
Melanie
R. Balfour
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-161FD/mrb/09221999