|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Jack
Thorpe, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC 1999-511 |
|
Police
Department, Town of Woodbridge, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February
23, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 5, 2000, at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. It is found that the complainant was arrested on May 6, 1997
and that by letter dated October 6, 1999, the complainant requested a copy of
his arrest file from the respondent.
3. By letter dated October 23, 1999, the respondent provided a
portion of the requested file to the complainant.
4. By letter dated October 29, 1999, and filed on November 2,
1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent
violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by providing only three
pages of a five page document, which pages were redacted.
5. 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,
whether
or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation,
shall be public records and every person shall have the right . . . to receive
a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that
conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in
any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.
6. It is found that the requested records are public records
within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. At the hearing on this matter the respondent argued that the
erasure provisions of §54-142a, G.S., preclude disclosure of the redacted
information and the pages of the complainant’s arrest file that were not
disclosed.
8.
Section 54-142a, G.S., provides in relevant part that:
(c)
[w]henever any charge
in a criminal case has been nolled in the Superior Court, or in Court of
Common Pleas, if at least thirteen months have elapsed since such nolle, all
police and court records and records of the state’s or prosecuting attorney
or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased . . .
.
(e)
. . . any law
enforcement agency having information contained in such erased records shall
not disclose to anyone, except the subject of the record, upon submission
pursuant to guidelines prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court
Administrator of satisfactory proof of the subject’s identity, information
pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this section . . . .
9. It is found that the charge for which the complainant was arrested was nolled and that thirteen months have elapsed since such nolle.
10. The respondent submitted the subject arrest file to the Commission for in-camera inspection, and the records contained therein have been identified as in-camera document #s 1999-511-1 through 1999-511-5, inclusive.
11. It is found that the redacted portions and the omitted pages of the arrest file contain information subject to the erasure provisions of §54-142a(c), G.S.
12. It is concluded that the erasure provisions of §54-142a(c), G.S., supersede the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act and that the redacted portions and the omitted pages of the arrest file are not required to be disclosed under the FOI Act.
13. Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 11, above, it is found that the complainant, as the subject of the requested records, may be entitled to access to the redacted and omitted portions of his arrest file pursuant to §54-142a(e), G.S. However, because this Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the disclosure of public records under the FOI Act, any rights conferred by §54-142a(e), G.S., must be pursued, if at all, in another forum.
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
February 23, 2000.
_________________________
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:
Jack
Thorpe
PO Box 875
Seymour, CT 06483-0875
Police
Department, Town of Woodbridge
c/o Atty. William C. Longa
264 Amity Road, Suite 103
Woodbridge, CT 06525
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-511FD/mrb/02/25/00