FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Edmund H. Mahony and the Hartford Courant,

 

Complainants

 

against Docket #FIC 86-184

 

State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,

 

Respondent September 23, 1986

 

The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 25, 1986, 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:

 

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter dated June 12, 1986 the complainants made a request of the commanding officer for the respondent, for the following records:

 

a. All investigative files relative to the search of Thomas DeBrizzi's home and the discovery of two fire arms;

 

b. All Connecticut State Police Internal Affairs Investigations, hearings and/or reports initiated after the disclosure of information intercepted by a wiretap placed on a telephone used by Thomas DeBrizzi; and

 

c. Any other records of State Police investigations and/or hearings which developed as a result of the wiretap.

 

3. By letter dated June 23, 1986 the respondents denied the request claiming the information was exempt pursuant to 54-41p(d), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 86-184 Page 2

 

4. From a denial of access to the requested information, the complainant appealed to the Commission by complaint filed on June 27, 1986.

 

5. It is found that 54-41p(d), G.S., prohibits the disclosure of any intercepted wire communication or evidence derived therefrom.

 

6. It is found that the information identified at paragraphs 2a and 2c, above, was all derived from intercepted communications and that there is nothing in Thomas DeBrizzi's file that was not generated as a result of the wire tap.

 

7. It is concluded that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure under 1-19(a), G.S., by operation of the non-disclosure provisions of 54-41p(d), G.S.

 

8. It is found that the information requested in paragraph 2b, above, does not exist.

 

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 special meeting of September 23, 1986.

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission