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, |
|
||
|
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