FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Shannon Rogelstad, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-317 |
|
|
Records Division,
Police Department, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September 13, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 8, 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. It is found that by letter
dated June 8, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent chief
provide her with a copy of case file #97-11-46355 (hereinafter file).
3. It is found that the
respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the records contained in
the file, with the exception of the following:
a.
medical information;
b.
witness statement of Erik Gilbert; and
c.
witness statement of Wayne Gilbert
4. It is found that the records
provided to the complainant by the respondents, were picked up by the
complainant on or about June 15, 2000.
5. By letter of complaint dated
June 19, 2000 and filed on June 22, 2000, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information
Act by denying her copies of all of the records concerning case file
#97-11-46355, and specifically, the records described in paragraph 3a, 3b and
3c, above. The complainant
further alleged that records, other than those provided to her, and those
described in paragraph 3a, 3b and 3c, above, might exist.
6. It is found that the
respondent provided the complainant with all records contained in the file,
with the exception of those described in paragraph 3a, 3b and 3c, above.
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
"Except 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." [Emphasis added.]
8. It is concluded that the records at issue, described in paragraph 3a, 3b and 3c, above, are maintained by the respondents and such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
9. With respect to the medical records at issue and described in paragraph 3a, above, the respondents indicated at the hearing on this matter that if the complainant provides them with a medical waiver, such records will be immediately turned over to her.
10. With respect to the records at issue and described in paragraph 3b and 3c, above, it is found that the respondents have two statements, which they provided to the Commission for in camera review. The respondents also provided for in camera review an unredacted police report, which contains information taken from the statements. (The redacted version was provided to the complainant). The respondents contend that the in camera records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.
11. Section 1-210(b)(3)(B), G. S., permits nondisclosure of [R]ecords of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of signed statements of witnesses.
12. It is found that the in camera records are records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public and were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(B), G. S. It is also found that the in camera records are signed statements of witnesses, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(B), G. S., and consequently, permissibly exempt from disclosure.
13. It is therefore, concluded
that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when they failed to
provide the complainant with a copy of the witness statements.
14. With respect to the medical records, it is unfortunate that the respondents did not communicate to the complainant, prior to the hearing, that she could have access to such records once she provides them with a waiver.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the medical
records, the respondents shall immediately provide the complainant with a copy
of such records, upon receipt of the waiver.
2. With respect to the witness
statements, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 13, 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:
Shannon Rogelstad
185 Highland Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
Records Division, Police Department, Town of Hamden; and Chief, Police
Department, Town of Hamden
c/o Atty. Susan Gruen
Hamden Town Attorney
2372 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-317FD/mrb/09/15/00