FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
against Docket #FIC 93-210
Legislative and Administrative Assistant Advisor, State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Safety,
Respondent April 27, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 26, 1993, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. In June 1993, in an undated letter, the complainant requested from the respondent copies of any and all police reports, documents, letters, memoranda and warrants concerning her arrest, particularly, Z-92-02473-7 Z-92-02474, Z-92-00582-7 and Z-92-02461-2.
3. In a letter dated June 17, 1993, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant's request and indicated that her department required a search fee of $6.00 for each of the requested reports, for a total of $24.00.
4. By letter dated July 2, 1993, the respondent indicated that upon receipt of the fee, she would provide the complainant with some of the requested reports.
5. Having received payment of the search fee, under cover letter dated July 15, 1993, the respondent provided the complainant with a complete copy of a report identified as Z92-02473-7, which pertained to the complainant and a redacted copy of Z92-00582-7, which the respondent claimed had been
Docket #FIC 93-210 Page 2
redacted in accordance with 1-19(b)(3)(F), 1-20c and 1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S. The respondent further indicated in her letter that the remaining two requested reports were not being provided because they related to pending criminal matters, that could not be released without permission of the prosecutors.
6. By letter dated August 3, 1993 and filed August 4, 1993, the complainant appealed the respondent's redactions and denial of access to the requested reports to this Commission.
7. It is concluded that the requested reports are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
8. With respect to the redacted report identified as Z92-00582-7, the respondent maintains that since the subject of the report was never arrested, the report contains uncorroborated allegations that are subject to destruction pursuant to 1-20c, G.S., and which are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S., and also contains the identity of a confidential informant, which is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S. Therefore, the respondent redacted those portions of the report that were exempt pursuant to those provisions.
9. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that item #s 8., 9., 10. and 11. of the investigative report described in paragraph 8, above, would reveal either uncorroborated allegations or the identity of a confidential informant; and it is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose such portions of the report to the complainant.
10. With respect to the remaining items of the investigative report described in paragraph 8, above, that were redacted by the respondent, it is found that the information contained therein is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(A) or 1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S.; and it is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect thereto.
11. With respect to the two reports not provided to the complainant, the respondent claims that such reports relate to pending criminal cases and that it is the policy of her department not to disclose such reports until the prosecutor grants permission to do so. The respondent also claims that pursuant to Gifford v. FOI Commission, 227 Conn. 641 (1993), such reports can not be disclosed at the present time.
Docket #FIC 93-210 Page 3
12. It is found that the two undisclosed reports described in paragraph 11, above, pertain to criminal cases that were pending at the time of the hearing on this matter, and it is concluded therefore that such reports are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
13. It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect to the reports that relate to pending cases, as referred to in paragraph 12, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of those portions of the investigative report that are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(A) or 1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S., as described in paragraph 8, of the findings above.
2. With respect to the remaining undisclosed records and portions of records not provided to the complainant, as described in paragraphs 10 and 12, of the findings above, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
3. The Commission notes the respondent's promise at the hearing on this matter to provide the complainant with copies of the requested reports that relate to pending cases when such cases are concluded and urges the respondent to follow-through on such promise.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 27, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-210 Page 4
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:
Ms. Ana Travesier
183 Seymour Street, 2nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
Legislative and Administrative Assistant Advisor,
State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
c/o Madeline A. Melchionne, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission