FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Kristy Chevarella and Ray Williams,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-362
Police Department, City of Waterbury,
		Respondent	February 14, 2001

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 23, 2000, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated June 29, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with copies of all documents relating to the criminal investigation of the complainant Williams.  

 

3.  By letter dated [July] 6, 2000, and filed with the Commission on July 10, 2000, the complainants appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide them with copies of the requested records.

 

4.      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….” 

 

            5.  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 . . . .”

 

            6.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainants acknowledged receipt of all requested records, excepting a signed statement of Barbara Dublin [hereinafter “statement”], and limited the scope of the complaint to the denial of the request for such record. 

 

7.  It is found that the respondent keeps on file or maintains the statement and that the statement is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.   The respondent contends that the statement is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

 

            9.  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. . . .”

 

            10.  It is found that the respondent conducted a criminal investigation into allegations made against the complainant Williams.  It is also found that during the aforementioned investigation, the statement was supplied to the respondent, and that the statement is a signed statement of a witness within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

 

11.  It is found, therefore, that the statement is permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S., and it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainants’ request for said record.

 

            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 February 14, 2001.

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Kristy Chevarella

82 Giles Street

Waterbury, CT 06704

 

Ray Williams #203839

MacDougall Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Police Department

City of Waterbury

c/o Kevin J. Daly, Jr., Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

City of Waterbury

52 Holmes Avenue

Waterbury, CT 06710

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-362/FD/paj/02/20/2001