FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 8, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).

 

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.  It is found that by letter dated May 16, 2007, with an attached application, the complainant made a request to the respondent for copies of: a) the “entire case file with the OIA case #01I-404”; and b) the investigation of an incident that occurred November 30, 2001 and was reported under the Bridgeport Police file number 011130-305. All interviews, reports, etc…” (paragraph 2b to be defined as the “requested records” or the “records”).

 

3.  It is found that the respondent credibly testified that he did not initially receive the complainant’s May 16, 2007 letter, with the attached application.

 

4.  By letter dated June 1, 2007 and filed with the Commission on June 5, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide the records described at paragraph 2a) and 2b), and thereby violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

 

5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., states:

 

“Public records or files” means 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.

 

6.  Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:

 

Except 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 person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. 

 

7.  Sections 1-210(b), G.S., states in relevant parts:

 

Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

 

….

 

 (3) 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 (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known, (B) signed statements of witnesses, (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action, (D) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public, (E) arrest records of a juvenile, which shall also include any investigatory files, concerning the arrest of such juvenile, compiled for law enforcement purposes, (F) the name and address of the victim of a sexual assault under section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b or 53a-73a, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals under section 53-21, or of an attempt thereof, or (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216;

 

….

 

(18) Records, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction, or as it applies to Whiting Forensic Division facilities of the Connecticut Valley Hospital, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction or Whiting Forensic Division facilities. Such records shall include, but are not limited to:

(A)  Security manuals, including emergency plans contained or referred to in such security manuals;

(B)  Engineering and architectural drawings of correctional institutions or facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities;

(C)  Operational specifications of security systems utilized by the Department of Correction at any correctional institution or facility, or Whiting Forensic Division facilities, except that a general description of any such security system and the cost and quality of such system may be disclosed;

(D) Training manuals prepared for correctional institutions and facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities that describe, in any manner, security procedures, emergency plans or security equipment;

(E) Internal security audits of correctional institutions and facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities;

(F) Minutes or recordings of staff meetings of the Department of Correction or Whiting Forensic Division facilities, or portions of such minutes or recordings, that contain or reveal information relating to security or other records otherwise exempt from disclosure under this subdivision;

(G) Logs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of inmates or staff at correctional institutions or facilities; and

(H) Records that contain information on contacts between inmates, as defined in section 18-84, and law enforcement officers;

 

8.  It is found that, the respondent, by letter dated October 3, 2007, transmitted to the complainant the records described at paragraph 2a), above.  

 

9.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain or possess the requested records. Moreover, contrary to a statement that the respondent made in his October 3, 2007 letter to the complainant, it is found that the Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport also does not maintain or possess the requested records (the records described at paragraph 2b).

 

10.  At the hearing, the respondent’s counsel offered to the Commission for an in camera inspection the final report of the investigation referred to at paragraph 2b), above. The complainant stated that he wished to receive a copy of this final report. Respondent’s counsel stated that she obtained the copy of the final report from the State’s Attorney’s Office. On the index to the in camera records, the respondent’s counsel claimed the exemptions at §§1-210(b)(3) and 1-210(b)(18), G.S., for each record. Such records were accepted by the Commission for an in camera inspection, and are hereby identified as IC-2007-332-1 through IC-2007-332-15.

 

11.  It is found that respondent’s counsel, by letter dated November 7, 2007 and transmitted by facsimile, requested that Joan Ellis of the Department of Correction (“DOC”) state the opinion of the Commissioner of DOC as to whether the in camera records were exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.   

 

12.  It is found that by letter dated November 15, 2007, Joan Ellis of DOC stated to respondent’s counsel: “The requested document does not fall within the parameters of C.G. §1-210(b)(18) and may be released to the requester.” Ms. Ellis went on to note that co-defendants are separated during their incarceration and that the release of their names would not put them at risk. This November 15, 2007 letter is admitted into evidence, pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §1-21j-38. 

 

13.  It is found that by letter dated November 21, 2007, the respondent’s counsel forwarded a copy of the requested records to the complainant, with a cover letter of explanation and including Ms. Ellis’s letter of November 15, 2007. This November 21, 2007 letter is also admitted into evidence, pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §1-21j-38. 

    

14.  It is concluded that the records described at paragraph 2a) and 2b) are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

15.  It is concluded that the final report of the investigation referred to at paragraph 2b) is within the scope of the complainant’s May 16, 2007 request. See Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 167 (1993):

 

As a practical matter, the FOIA is used repeatedly by members of the public who are unschooled in technical, legalistic language distinctions. It would be unreasonable to deny a member of the public access to the FOIA simply because of arguable imperfections in the form in which a request for public records is couched.      

 

16.  Based upon the lack of evidence at the hearing and the in camera inspection, it is concluded that the requested records are not exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S.  

 

17.  Based upon the letter of Joan Ellis described at paragraph 12, above, it is concluded that the requested records are not exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.

 

18.  As referenced at paragraph 10, above, respondent’s counsel made efforts beyond her legal obligations by obtaining the copy of the relevant final report from the State’s Attorney’s Office. She did so for the express purpose of providing records to the complainant. Because the respondent did not maintain or possess the requested records at the time of the request, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

 

            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 January 9, 2008.

 

 

________________________________

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:

 

Gary Cooke, #169077

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

           

Lieutenant Roderick Porter, Commander,

Internal Affairs Division, Police

Department, City of Bridgeport

c/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.

Office of City Attorney

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-332FD/paj/1/14/2008