FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Donald J. Lanouette, Jr., |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC
1999-533
|
|
Chief,
Police Department, Town |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
April 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter
was heard as a contested case on January 26, 2000, at which time the
complainant 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.
2.
By letter dated
October 11, 1999, the complainant made a written request to the respondents
for copies of the results of two polygraph tests taken in reference to
Internal Affairs Investigation 93-005-IA.
3.
By letter dated
October 20, 1999, the respondents responded to the complainant’s letter of
October 11, 1999, by stating that Sgt. Jeffries objected to the disclosure of
his polygraph test results and that the respondents would not disclose his
test results unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Commission.
4.
By letter dated
November 12, 1999, and filed on November 16, 1999, the complainant appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying
his request with respect to Sgt. Jeffries’ test results and failing to
provide him with a copy of his own test results.
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. Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . .”
7. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
8.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant limited his complaint to the respondents’
denial of a copy of the polygraph test results of Sgt. Jack Jeffries
(hereinafter subject record).
9.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondents argued that the subject record is exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.].
10.
Section
1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.], provides that a public agency need not disclose “personnel or medical
files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion
of personal privacy.”
11.
The appropriate test
for determining whether §1-210(b)(2),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.], is applicable to the subject record is set forth in Perkins v.
Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993).
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.
12.
It is found that the
subject record constitutes a “personnel” or “similar” file within the
meaning of §1-210(b)(2),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.].
13.
The respondents
submitted the subject record to the Commission for in-camera
inspection, which record has been identified as in-camera document #
1999-533-1.
14.
It is found that the
subject record pertains to legitimate matters of public concern because the
subject record relates directly to police misconduct while on duty and that
disclosure of the information contained in the subject record is not highly
offensive to a reasonable person.
15.
It is therefore
concluded that disclosure of the subject record would not constitute an
invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.].
16.
It is further
concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], by failing to provide the complainant with access to the subject
record.
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 complainant with access to the subject record, described in paragraph 8 of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
April 26, 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:
Donald J. Lanouette, Jr.
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
FIC1999-533FD/mrb/05/01/00