FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 15, 2003, at which time the complainant 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 on or about March 4, 2003, the complainant filed a criminal complaint with the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police against certain judicial marshals.

 

3.      It is found that the complaint described in paragraph 2, above, was investigated by a State Trooper McNiff, who wrote an investigation report in which she concluded that there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed (hereinafter “investigation report”) and the case was closed. 

 

4.      It is found that on or about March 23, 2003, the complainant requested a copy of the investigation report through the Reports and Records Unit of the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety and submitted the required eight-dollar search fee in the form of a check.

 

5.      It is found that by letter dated May 8, 2003, the complainant was informed that pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., the requested record was not subject to disclosure and thereby, the complainant was denied a copy of the investigation report. 

 

6.      It is found that at some time shortly after the complainant received the May 8, 2003 letter described in paragraph 5, above, he requested a refund of the eight-dollar fee and was informed that the fee would not be refunded.

 

7.      By e-mail correspondence dated June 10, 2003 and filed on June 11, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to:

 

a.       provide him with a copy of the investigation report; and

 

b.      refund the eight-dollar fee.

 

8.      With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 7a, above, §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 (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.  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. 

 

9.      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 . . . .”

 

10.  It is found that the investigation report is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

11.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(G). G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Records 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 . . . uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216.

 

12.  It is found that the investigation report constitutes a record of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public which record was compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

13.  It is found, by the complainant’s own admission, that there were no witnesses to the alleged criminal acts of the judicial marshals. 

 

14.  It is also found that the Chief Judicial Marshal conducted an investigation of the complainant’s allegations in which he interviewed all individuals the complainant named in the complaint he filed with the state police, reviewed surveillance tapes that recorded the areas in which the alleged criminal activity occurred and reviewed the investigation report of State Trooper McNiff.  The Chief Judicial Marshal concluded that his investigation revealed nothing that would substantiate the complainant’s allegations and closed the case.

 

15.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent’s witness, Attorney Dawn Hellier, provided credible testimony that the investigation conducted by State Trooper McNiff was extensive and that State Trooper McNiff was unable to support or confirm by any new evidence the allegations the complainant made against the judicial marshals.

 

16.  Consequently, it is found that the investigation report contains uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.

 

17.  It is further found that the respondent determined that the disclosure of the investigation report would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of such uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction.

 

18.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request for a copy of the investigation report.

 

19.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation regarding the eight-dollar fee, described in paragraph 7b, above, it is found that the complainant received a refund of such fee prior to the hearing in this matter and the Commission will take no further action with respect thereto.

 

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 25, 2004.

 

___________________________________

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:

 

 

Martin Chalecki,

2370 North Avenue

Apt. 7B

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety, Division of State Police,

Reports and Records Department,

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT    06105

 

 

___________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-218/FD/mes/03/02/2004