FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Marion Edgar,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-405

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police,

 
  Respondent January 9, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 27, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondent submitted the requested records, as described in paragraph 2 of the findings, below, for an in camera inspection.

 

            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.  By letter dated June 22, 2007, and filed on June 25, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her request for a copy of a public record concerning a complaint of harassment against her by John Moreno.

 

3.   It is found that, on or about January 7, 2007, the complainant requested a copy of a complaint made against her (hereinafter “requested record”).  The complainant included a check payable in the amount of $9.00 for copying fees, which was negotiated on or about January 11, 2007.

 

4.      It is found that the respondent denied the complainant’s request claiming that the investigation file was considered uncorroborated allegations of criminal activity and would be subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S.

       

5.   Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

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

 

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.

 

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

           

            8.  It is found that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

           

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

 

10.  The respondent contends that the requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., which provides that disclosure is not required of:

 

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 …  (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216 ….

 

11.  In turn, §1-216, G.S., provides:

 

Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records.  If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records. 

 

12.  The respondent submitted the requested records to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera record #s 2007-405-001 through 2007-405-014.

 

13.  In contested case Docket #FIC 94-219, Rachel Gottlieb and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, (hereinafter "FIC 94-219") the Commission found that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1990), defines "corroborate" as "to strengthen, to add weight or credibility to a thing by additional and confirming facts or evidence." Ballentines Law Dictionary, Third Edition (1969) defines corroborate as "to state facts tending to produce confidence in the truth of a statement made by another." Funk & Wagnall New Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1946) defines corroborate as "to give increased support to; make more sure or evident."

 

14.  In Docket #FIC 94-219, the Commission found that "the reports contain similar accounts relayed to the respondent by different interviewees concerning the allegations under investigation.” The Commission went on to find that "the requested reports contain allegations which were corroborated."

 

15.   In this case, it is found that the in-camera records contain no similar accounts of the alleged harassment by different individuals or any information that tends to strengthen, add weight or support the allegations made by Mr. Moreno.

 

16.   It is found that the in-camera records are records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public and that such records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

17.  It is found that the in-camera records contain uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.

 

18.  Consequently, it is found that disclosure of the in-camera records would result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.

 

19.  It is therefore concluded that the in-camera records are permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure under §§1-210(b)(3)(G) and 1-216, G.S., and further that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant's request.

 

20.  Although not raised at the hearing, on the index to records submitted for in-camera inspection, the respondent also claimed that §1-217(a)(2), G.S., applied to certain records.  However, it is not necessary to address such exemption, because the in-camera records are exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), 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 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:

 

Marion Edgar

210 Lantern Park Lane North

Southbury, CT 06488

           

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police

c/o DeAnn S. Varunes, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-405FD/paj/1/15/2008