FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Caroline Porter, The Herald, and

The Record-Journal,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2002-368

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Southington,

 

 

Respondent

July 23, 2003

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 6, 2003, at which time the complainant Porter and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The complainant, The Herald, did not appear.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant Porter requested on behalf of the Record-Journal, that such newspaper be added as a party complainant, as complainant Porter was now affiliated with the Record-Journal, and no longer affiliated with the Herald.  There being no objection from the respondent, such request was granted.  The case caption in this matter has been amended to reflect such change. 

 

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, during a July 18, 2002 meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Southington, such board unanimously voted to revise the General Orders to allow for the implementation of “tasers” as a means of less than lethal force.

 

            3.  It is found that, at some time after the meeting described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant Porter requested that the respondent provide her with copies of the previous and new policies on use of force [hereinafter “requested records”].

 

            4.  It is found that, by letter dated August 9, 2002, the respondents denied the request described in paragraph 3, above.

 

            5.  By letter dated August 14, 2002 and filed on August 16, 2002, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them a copy of the requested records.

 

6.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as:

 

any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

            7.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., in relevant part, further provides:

 

[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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

            8.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides that: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record….”

 

            9.  It is found that the respondent maintains the requested records and that such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.  It is found that the requested records contain guidelines as to when to apply lethal and non-lethal force.  It is further found that the previous policy on use of force is reflected in the new policy.

 

11.  The respondent contends that release of the information described in paragraph 10, above, will allow the public to manipulate a deadly force situation. 

 

12.  The respondent also contends that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.

 

13.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., permits the 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 … (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action….

 

14.  It is found that the requested records are law enforcement records that are not “otherwise available to the public” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. 

 

            15.  It is further found, however, that the requested records were not “compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.; rather the requested records were compiled for the purpose of providing uniform guidelines to police personnel regarding the apprehension of suspects. 

 

16.  It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested records are to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and that the disclosure of such records would be prejudicial to such action.

 

            17.  It is therefore concluded that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.

 

            18.  It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., when he failed to provide the complainants with copies of the requested records. 

 

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

 

1.  Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant Porter with copies of the requested records. 

 

 

 

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

July 23, 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:

 

Caroline Porter

The Herald

One Herald Square

New Britain, CT  060500

 

The Herald

One Herald Square

New Britain, CT  06050

 

The Record-Journal

11 Crown Street

Meriden, CT  06450

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Southington

c/o Mark J. Sciota, Esq.

Elliott Stanek & Sciota

188 North Main Street

PO Box 578

Southington, CT  06489

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-368FD/abg/07/25/2003