|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Lynn Fredricksen and New Haven
Register, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC1999-333 |
|
Chief, Police Department, Town |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
March
8, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 22,
1999, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
[formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.]
2. It is found that
the complainants made several requests to the respondents for a copy of an
internal investigation report into an allegation that a Madison police officer
engaged in inappropriate conduct at a party [hereinafter "the
report"], and that the complainants renewed such request on July 19,
1999.
3. It is found that, on
July 19, 1999, the respondents denied the complainants a copy of the report.
4. By letter dated
and filed with the Commission on July 20, 1999, the complainants appealed to
the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act by the denial described in paragraph 3, above.
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…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…."
6. It is concluded that
the report is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a), G.S.]
7. The respondents
submitted a copy of the report to the Commission for in-camera
inspection, which report has been identified as in-camera document #s:
FIC1999-333-1 through 1999-333-107.
8. The respondents contend
that the report is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(2)
and 1-214(c), G.S. [formerly §§1-19(b)(2)
and 1-20a(c), G.S.]
9. Section 1-214(c), G.S.
[formerly §1-20a(c),
G.S.], in relevant part states:
[a] public
agency which has provided notice under subsection (b) of this section shall
disclose the records requested unless it receives a written objection from the
employee concerned or the employee's collective bargaining representative…Upon
the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection, the agency shall
not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of
Information Commission pursuant to section 1-206….
10.
Section 1-214(b), G.S. [formerly §1-20a(b),
G.S.], in relevant part states:
[w]henever a
public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any
of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar files and the agency
reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally
constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in
writing (1) each employee concerned, provided such notice shall not be
required to be in writing where impractical due to the large number of
employees concerned
and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee
concerned….
11. It is found that
objections to disclosure signed by the employees described in the report
and/or their collective bargaining representative were filed with the
respondents, within the meaning of §1-214, G.S. [formerly §1-20a,
G.S.]
12. Section 1-210(b)(2),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.], in relevant part provides for the nondisclosure of "personnel or
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an
invasion of personal privacy."
13. The Supreme Court set
forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., [formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.], exemption in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228
Conn. 158, 175 (1993). Specifically,
the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel,
medical or similar files. Second,
the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an
invasion of personal privacy. In
determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal
privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the
information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern,
and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
14. It is found that the
report is a "similar" file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.]
15.
Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in
paragraph 7, above, it is found that the information sought does not pertain
to legitimate matters of public concern within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
16.
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.
17.
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.).
18.
Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by denying the
complainants access to, or a copy of, the report.
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 8, 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:
Lynn Fredricksen and New Haven Register
16 West Main
Street
Clinton, CT
06413
Chief, Police Department, Town of
Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison
c/o Atty. Dean R. Singewald, II
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT
06460
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of
the Commission
FIC1999-333FD/mrb/03/09/00