FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Richard H. Kosinski,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 Docket #FIC 2000-399

Records Division, Police Department,
Town of Berlin; and Police Department,
Town of Berlin,

 

 

Respondents

October 11, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 21, 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 April 25, 2000, the complainant made a request to the respondents for “any and all documents constituting [the] file concerning any complaint on or after January 1, 1999 against Building Official Anthony A. Dalfino, by whatever name he was described to you, including statements by Norman Nadeau, Ed DiPhillips, Juliet Benjamin, Nick Chirico, Jim Horbal and Bonnie Therrien.”

 

3.  By letter dated July 15, 2000, after the respondents provided the complainant with a  copy of the incident report related to his April 25, 2000 request, the complainant submitted another request to the respondents for “the balance of the requested file” claiming that the respondents failed to provide copies of the witness statements, a plot plan, wetlands permits, transfer letters and condition permits.

 

4.      By letter dated July 20, [2000], the respondents responded to the complainant’s July 15, 2000 request by providing him with the remaining records in the file with the exception of the witness statements, and the plot plan because it was an oversized document and the department did not have the equipment to duplicate the records.

 

5.      By letter dated July 24, 2000 and filed on July 26, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with the plot plan and the witness statements.

 

6.      Section 1-210(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.” 

 

7.      Section 1-212(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 . . . .”

 

8.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the plot plan and therefore the only records that remain at issue are the witness statements.

 

10.  The respondents contend that the witness statements are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

 

11.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S., provides, in relevant part, that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of:

 

“records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a 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 respondent department conducted a criminal investigation into allegations made against the building official of the town of Berlin.

 

13.  It is found that during the aforementioned investigation, the investigating officer took statements from witnesses, which were signed by those witnesses.

 

14.  It is also found that the chief of the respondent department instituted a policy within the department to apply the exemption found in §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S., to all witness statements based upon a determination that the disclosure of such statements might compromise future investigations.

 

15.  The complainant contends the respondents have violated both the spirit and the letter of the law by withholding the witness statements because the department did not determine that disclosure of the specific witness statements he has requested would not be in the public interest. The complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

 

16.   It is found, however, that the respondents have made a determination, applicable to the request in this case, that disclosure of the witness statements would not be in the public interest based upon the possibility that disclosure might compromise future investigations.

 

17.  It is found, therefore, that the subject witness statements are permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S., and it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request for said records.

 

18.  Accordingly, the complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties is hereby denied.

 

 

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 October 11, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski 

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:

 

 

Richard H. Kosinski

106 Farmington Avenue

New Britain, CT  06053

 

Records Division, Police Department,

Town of Berlin; and Police Department,

Town of Berlin

c/o E. Timothy Sullivan, Jr., Esq.

Gaffney Kane, P.C.

One Liberty Square

New Britain, CT  06051

 

 

__________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-399FD/mes10162000