FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Steven Edelman,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1997-198
Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner,
State of Connecticut, Department of Public
Safety; Susan Revoir, Supervisor, Reports &
Records Division, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety; and
State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety,
Respondents May 27, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 14, 1997, 
at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
	2.  By letter dated May 30, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondents 
furnish him with copies of police report K96-127571, a report relating “to a perjury 
investigation conducted by Detective Sergeant Steven Fields of Troop K in Colchester of 
James Abrams or Donald Schultz or both (the “requested record”).
	3.  By letter dated June 9, 1997, the respondents declined to provide a copy of the 
requested record to the complaint, citing 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., as legal basis for their 
decision.
	4.  By letter dated June 16, 1997, and filed on June 17, 1997, the complainant 
appealed to the Commission. By an amended complaint dated and filed on July 11, 1997, 
the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act 
(“FOIA”) by failing to provide him with a copy of the requested record, by charging too 
much for a document, and by requiring payment before looking for a document. The 
complainant also requested that the Commission perform an in camera inspection of the 
requested record and assess a civil penalty against the respondents.
	5.  At the hearing, the Commission ordered submission of the requested record for 
an in camera inspection, and immediately afterwards, the respondents filed the requested 
record with the Commission as provided by the Regulations of State Agencies.
	6.  Section 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides that:
(n)othing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed 
to require disclosure 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…uncorroborated allegations [of criminal activity]….
	7.  Section 29-10b, G.S., provides that the respondent commissioner shall, during 
the relevant time period, charge eight dollars for each search of record files made 
pursuant to a request for a copy.
	8.  Based upon an in camera inspection of the requested record by the 
Commission, it is found that the requested record does contain uncorroborated allegations 
of criminal activity.
	9.  It is found that the complainant was assessed an eight dollar search charge, 
even though he was not provided a copy of the requested record.
	
	10.  It is therefore concluded that, pursuant to the provisions of 1-19(b)(3)(G), 
G.S., the requested record is not subject to mandatory disclosure by the respondents, and 
the respondents did not violate 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., when they declined to 
provide the complainant with a copy of the requested record.
	11.  It is also concluded that no provision of the FOIA supersedes the provisions 
of 29-10b, G.S., which established a search charge of eight dollars in cases where no 
document is produced. Accordingly, the fee assessed as found at paragraph 9, above, was 
proper and lawful.
	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 May 27, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Steven Edelman
Frog Pond
Windham Center, CT 06280
Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; 
Susan Revoir, Supervisor, Reports & Records Division, State of Connecticut, Department 
of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
c/o Atty. Robert Fiske
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
c/o Lynn D. Wittenbrink
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-198/FD/tcg/05291998