FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Jack Dolan and The Hartford Courant, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-514 |
|
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 10, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 14,
2000, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
[formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.]
2. It is found that, by letter dated September 15, 1999, the complainants requested that the respondents furnish them with a digital copy of all the fields of information typically produced on a rap sheet for every adult within the respondents’ database. By such letter, the complainants agreed to pay costs in compliance with §1-212(b), G.S. [formerly §1-15(b), G.S.]
3. It is found that an individual’s rap sheet is that person’s criminal history.
4. It is found that, by letter dated September 16, 1999, the respondents informed the complainants that requests for criminal history are governed by §29-11, G.S., which imposes a fee of $25.00 per criminal history record search, and that dates of birth or social security numbers would be redacted before providing the information requested in paragraph 2, above.
5. It is found that, by letter dated October 20, 1999, the complainants requested clarification of the letter described in paragraph 4, above.
6. It is found that, by letter dated October 29, 1999, the respondents informed the complainants that the database at issue contains both public and non-public information, that they will conduct a criminal history record search for $25.00 per search and that they are prohibited from disclosing non-conviction information. It is further found that, by such letter, the respondents estimated that the cost of complying with the request described in paragraph 2, above, would be $20,375,000 (815,000 names multiplied by $25.00 per search). The respondents further informed the complainants that approximately 323,000 names are subject to disclosure, and that pardons and criminal appeals change the status of the availability of information on a daily basis.
7. By letter
dated November 3, 1999, and filed on November 4, 1999, the complainants
appealed to the Commission, alleging that the estimated fee described in
paragraph 6, above, was in violation of the Freedom of Information
[hereinafter “FOI”] Act, and that the respondents’ imposition of such a
fee denied them access to the copy requested in paragraph 2, above.
8. It is found that the complainants do not dispute the redactions proposed by the respondents; rather, their complaint is limited to the issue of the estimated fee. Accordingly, the issue of redactions shall not be addressed herein.
9. The complainants contend that they do not seek a criminal history record search of each name in the respondents’ database, but rather a copy of the database, absent data contained in exempt fields, and, further, that the fee schedule set forth in §1-212, G.S. [formerly §1-15, G.S.], controls.
10. It is found that the requested records are public records
within the meaning of §1-200(5),
G.S. [formerly §1-18a(5),
G.S.].
11. Section 1-210(a), G. S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part:
[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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212….
(Emphasis added.)
12. Section 1-212, G. S. [formerly §1-15, G.S.], provides in relevant part: