FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John A. Hoda,

 
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-143

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Haven,

 
  Respondent January 23, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 17, 2007, 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, by written request dated January 25, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of documentation of “all incidences” involving Richard Benson and Lawrence Maberry.  It is further found that the complainant renewed such requests on February 20, 2007. 

 

3.  By letter dated March 6, 2007, and filed with the Commission on March 7, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

           

4.       Section 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 . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212….”

 

5. 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.”

 

6.  It is found that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraph 2, above, and that such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.  It is found that the respondent has provided, or has agreed to provide, the complainant with many records responsive to his requests.  It is found that, as of the date of the hearing in this matter, the respondent had withheld one entire case file, and portions of a separate case file from the complainant. 

 

7.  With respect to one case file, no. 06-56616, the respondent pledged at the hearing in this matter to provide the complainant with all portions of such file, except portions exempt under either the erasure statute or the youthful offender statute.  In this regard, at the hearing in this matter, the complainant did not dispute any claimed exemptions, except application of the youthful offender statute to any portion of the youthful offender record of Lawrence Maberry, who is deceased. 

 

8.  Section 54-76l, G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

(a) [t]he records or other information of a youth…shall be confidential and shall not be open to public inspection or be disclosed except as provided in this section.…

 

(b) [t]he records of any such youth…may be disclosed to…agencies, providing services directly to the youth, including law enforcement officials, state and federal prosecutorial officials, school officials…, court officials, the Division of Criminal Justice, the Court Support Service Division, the Board of Pardons and Parole and an advocate appointed pursuant to section 54-221….

 

9.  The complainant contends that, since Mr. Maberry is deceased, he has no right to enforce the confidentiality provisions of such statute.  However, it is concluded that §54-76l(a), G.S., does not imbue youthful offenders with a right to enforce confidentiality provisions, but rather imposes a duty on the respondent to keep confidential the records of youthful offenders, except where specifically provided for therein.  It is concluded that there is no provision of the statute that alleviates that duty upon the death of a youthful offender.  Thus, it is further concluded that the death of Mr. Maberry does not allow the respondent to provide Mr. Maberry’s youthful offender record to the complainant. 

 

10.  With respect to the other case file, case no. 06-50454, the respondent has withheld such file in its entirety from the complainant. 

 

11.  After the hearing in this matter, the respondent provided such file to the Commission for an in camera review.  Such in camera records shall hereinafter be referenced as IC-2007-143-1 through IC-2007-143-135. 

 

12.  It is found that the in camera records constitute the police investigation into the murder of Lawrence Maberry in New Haven in August, 2006.  Such records consist of signed witness statements, informant statements, police incident reports, an autopsy report, and evidence lists.  It is further found that the murder of Lawrence Maberry is unsolved and that the respondent is actively pursuing leads and a suspect in such investigation.   

 

            13.  The respondent contends that the in camera records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A) and (C), G.S.

 

            14.  Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., provides, in relevant part, that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure 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 (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…(C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action….

 

15.  Upon careful review of the in camera records, it is found that such records are records of a law enforcement agency compiled in the investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.   It is further found that disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because disclosure would prejudice a prospective law enforcement action, namely the arrest and conviction of the murderer of Lawrence Maberry.  Specifically, it is found that release of the records could allow the perpetrator of the crime to discern the nature of the respondent’s investigation, whether such person is suspected, the evidence gathered, the witness statements, and the avenue of inquiry.  Such knowledge could allow the perpetrator or others to fashion alibis, threaten or harm witnesses, and generally frustrate the pending investigation.   

 

16.  It is found, therefore, that the in camera records are permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint. 

 

            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 23, 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:

 

John A. Hoda

PO Box 3701

Milford, CT 06460

           

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Haven

c/o Kathleen Foster, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

165 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-143FD/paj/1/25/2008