FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 24, 2007, at which time the complainants 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.      By letter dated April 23, 2007, the complainants made a request for certain records and information that included a request to inspect “any and all pistol applications (also known as Form DPS-799-C) submitted between January 1, 1996 and January 15, 2007” which is the only portion of her request at issue in this complaint.

 

3.      It is found that the respondent, through counsel, denied the complainants’ request with respect to those applications that had been approved, claiming that the records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d), G.S.  It is found however, that the respondent, through counsel, agreed to provide the complainants with access to inspect those applications that had been denied.

 

4.      By letter dated May 4, 2007 and filed on May 4, 2007, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their April 23, 2007 request.

 

5.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“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 . . . 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 records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainants contend that they are seeking information contained in pistol permit applications, not the pistol permits themselves, and that the information contained in the pistol permit applications is not exempt from disclosure by the plain language of §29-28(d), G.S.  The complainant asked that this Commission affirm its decision in Docket #FIC 2002-528; Nazarian v. First Selectman, Town of Griswold (Aug. 13, 2003).

 

10.   In Nazarian the Commission did not address the applicability of §29-28(d), G.S.  Specifically, the Commission concluded in paragraph 13 of that decision that “in the absence of federal law or state statute that bars disclosure of the information contained in the requested records, such records are disclosable pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S.” 

 

11.   It is concluded that the respondent is not precluded from raising §29-28(d), G.S., in his defense, notwithstanding a different respondent’s previous failure to raise the defense in Nazarian.

 

12.   It is found that persons issued a permit or a temporary state permit to carry pistols and revolvers by the respondent had to first complete Form DPS-799-C (“the application”).  It is found that when an application is approved, it is stamped with the word(s) approved and/or issued and that such application thereby becomes a “permit” within the meaning of §29-28(d), G.S.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain a separate document that would constitute a person’s permit to carry a pistol or revolver once the application has been issued or approved.

 

13.   Section 29-28(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed . . . .

 

14.   It is concluded that the issue of whether §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from disclosure the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits is not a question of first impression for the Commission.  In Docket #1998-327; Sherman v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (Aug. 25, 1999), the Commission concluded that disclosure of the names and addresses of applicants who appealed the denial of their pistol permit applications and subsequently were granted permits were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d), G.S.  The Commission also concluded that the names and addresses of applicants who had pending appeals of denials of their pistol permit applications were also exempt from disclosure, because disclosure might reveal the names and addresses of persons who might be successful in their appeals and ultimately might be issued a permit. 

 

15.   It is concluded that §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure the names and addresses of: persons whose applications are pending; persons whose applications have been approved; persons whose applications were initially denied but later approved on appeal; and persons whose applications were denied but who have pending appeals of such denials.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants. 

 

16.   In its recent final decision Docket #FIC 2007-154; MariAn Gail Brown and The Connecticut Post v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Stratford (Feb. 27, 2008) (hereinafter “Docket#FIC2007-154”), a matter concerning a request identical to the one herein, the Commission concluded that the respondent in such matter did not violate the FOI Act by withholding dates of birth from the complainants.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent herein did not violate the FOI Act by withholding dates of birth from the complainants. 

 

17.   The Commission also concluded in Docket#FIC2007-154, that employment histories found on the application, that actually contain the name of a self-employed applicant, may be redacted.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent herein did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants.

 

18.    With respect to remaining employment histories found on the applications of persons described in paragraph 15, above, it is found that the respondent failed to present evidence, and therefore failed to prove, that such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to provide such records to the complainants. 

 

19.  The Commission takes administrative/judicial notice that it is common knowledge that a telephone number can lead to the identification of a name and an address, and is therefore excluded by §29-28(d), G.S.

 

20.  With respect to the applications that were denied, at the hearing in this matter, the respondent indicated again that he would provide the complainants with access to inspect such records.  

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.      The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to inspect the requested records described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above. 

 

2.      In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may redact the names and addresses of: persons whose applications are pending; persons whose applications have been approved; persons whose applications were initially denied but later approved on appeal; and persons whose applications were denied but who have pending appeals of such denials.  Additionally, with respect to such persons, the respondent may redact employment histories that name such persons. 

 

3.      In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may also redact social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical histories, and birth dates, with respect to all applicants. 

 

4.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the telephone numbers of persons whose applications are approved or pending. 

 

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:

 

MariAn Gail Brown and

the Connecticut Post

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

           

Chief, Police Department,

City of Bridgeport

c/o Melanie Howlett, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2^nd Floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-268FD/paj/3/31/2008