FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 1, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed April 4, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent denied his March 22, 2007 request for public records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant by letter dated March 22, 2007 requested that the respondent provide the “master investigation file” for complaint number 2000-099720, including all witness statements, leading to the complainant’s arrest on February 21, 2001 and conviction in State v. Anderson.[1]

 

4.  It is found that the requested records concern the sexual assault of a minor by the complainant.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent mailed the complainant at Cheshire Correctional Institution (“CCI”) a copy of the requested file on or about March 31, 2007, redacting the name and identifying information of the minor victim, the signed witness statement of a minor, and the medical records of the minor child.

 

6.  The complainant contends that he never actually received the mailed records at CCI.

 

7.  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.

 

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

 

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. 

 

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

 

10.  It is found that the respondent mailed to the complainant at CCI all the public records in its custody that are responsive to the complainant’s requests, other than the redacted information described in paragraph 5, above. 

 

11.  The respondent contends that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(B) and (F), G.S., which provide 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 … (B) signed statements of witnesses … (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 ….

 

12.  It is concluded that the signed witness statements not provided to the complainant are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

 

13.  It is also concluded that the redacted information concerning the victim of the sexual assault is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S.

 

14.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(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 dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 26, 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:

 

Oscar L. Anderson, #287460

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT 06410

           

Neil O’Leary, Chief,

Police Department,

City of Waterbury

c/o Janis M. Small, Esq.

Office of Corporation Counsel

26 Kendrick Avenue, 8^th floor

Waterbury, CT 06702

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-205FD/paj/3/27/2008