FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Harry B. Elliott, Jr. and Connecticut Council

of Police, AFSCME Council 15, AFL-CIO,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 Docket #FIC 2002-326

Assistant City Attorney,

Office of the City Attorney,

City of Bridgeport,

 

 

Respondent

March 1, 2003

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 15, 2002, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated July 11, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent allow him to inspect and receive a copy of  “the internal investigation report you refer to in your July 7, 2002 letter to Attorney Musto” (“the requested records” or sometimes “the records”).

 

3.  By letter dated July 15, 2002, the respondent acknowledged receipt of complainant’s request, stated that the records had been sealed by Special Master William Clendenen, and denied the complainant’s request.  On July 18, 2002, the respondent, by letter, denied the request citing §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.

 

4.  By letter dated July 16, 2002, and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on July 19, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent refused complainant’s request for records. The complainant requested that the Commission conduct an in camera inspection of the records and order that they be disclosed. 

 

5.  At the hearing and in her brief, the respondent continued to maintain that the requested records were exempt, pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., as records of law enforcement agencies which contained uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction.

 

6.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

 

            … (3) (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 … (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216”. (emphasis added)

 

7. The respondent submitted the requested records to the Commission for an in-camera inspection, which has been performed.

 

 8.  It is found that the respondent, at the time she received the records request, reasonably concluded that disclosure of the records would not legally constitute an invasion of privacy.

 

 9.  It is concluded that §1-214(b), G.S. and §1-206(b)(1), G.S., as implemented by order 5 of the Commission’s October 25, 2002 order to show cause, contemplate giving the appropriate notice only when the agency holding the records “reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy”. See Chairman, Board of Education of the Town of Darien v. Freedom of Information Commission, 60 Conn. App. 584 (2000).

 

10.  Therefore, it is also concluded that neither the respondent nor the Commission were legally required to give notice of the request for the records, or of the Commission proceeding, to the persons who were the subject of the records.      

 

11.  It is also found that the requested records were compiled as part of a numbered Office of Internal Affairs case, by an Office of Internal Affairs investigator, following allegations of employee misconduct in cross-complaints by two police officers. The reports of the investigation were addressed to the Police Chief, and not to a state’s attorney for prosecution. Accordingly, the records concerned a personnel matter and were a tool for the internal management of the Bridgeport Police Department.

 

12.  It is further found that, while criminal statutes are often potentially applicable in cases of extreme employee misconduct, the purpose of the internal affairs investigation at issue herein was not to enforce criminal law or develop a case for a criminal prosecution.

 

13.  It is therefore concluded that the records were not “compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime”, as that term is employed in §1-210(b)(3), G.S., and are not exempt “records of law enforcement agencies”. 

 

 14.  It is finally concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., when she declined to disclose the requested records.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide a complete set of the requested records to the complainant free of charge.

           

2.  An essentially personal dispute has herein mushroomed, so as to require the expenditure of an inordinate amount of scarce municipal and state governmental resources. It would be a most positive development if the police officers in question resolved to put their differences aside, so that they and the Bridgeport Police Department can focus their full energies on providing needed service to the public.

           

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

March 26, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Harry B. Elliott, Jr. and Connecticut Council of Police,

AFSCME Council 15, AFL-CIO

c/o Robert J. Murray, Esq.

AFSCME Council 15 Legal Department

290 Pratt Street

Meriden,CT 06450

 

Assistant City Attorney, Office of

the City Attorney, City of Bridgeport

c/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.

Assistant City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2nd Floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-326FD/abg/03/28/2003