FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. and
Greenwich Time,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1997-422
Chief, Greenwich Police
Department, Town of Greenwich;
and Greenwich Police
Department, Town of Greenwich,
Respondents September 9, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 26, 1998, 
at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts 
and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing on this 
matter, Silver Shield Association, Inc. requested, and was granted, intervenor status.    
	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(1), G.S.
	2.   By letter dated December 19, 1997, the complainants requested that the 
respondents provide them with a copy of the report of the Checkers International 
investigation of alleged wrongdoing within the Greenwich Police Department (hereinafter 
“the report”).
	3.   Having been denied the report, the complainants appealed to the Commission 
by letter dated December 29, 1997 and filed December 30, 1997, alleging that the 
respondents thereby violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. 
	4.   Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[e]xcept as otherwise 
provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any 
public agency…shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect 
such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such 
records….”   
	5.   It is found that the report is a public record within the meaning of 1-19(a), 
G.S.
	6.   The respondents submitted the report, consisting of a preface, a chronicle of 
the investigation, and numerous exhibits, to the Commission for in-camera inspection, 
which records have been identified as in-camera document #s: 1997-422-preface; 1997-
422-chronicle; and 1997-422-exhibit-1-12, 12A, 13-17, 17A, 18-19, 19A-19G, 20-25, 
25A-25D, 26, 26A-26T, 27, 27A-27M, 28-31, 31A-31B, 32, 32A-32U, 33, 33A-33J, 34-
36, 36A-36E, 37, 37A-37C, 38-39, 41-95, 97-105, 107-115, 118, AA, BB, CC, and DD.  
The respondents did not provide the following exhibits for in-camera review: 1997-422-
exhibit-40, 96, 106, 116 and 117.
	7.   The respondents contend that the majority of the report is exempt from 
mandatory disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S., which in relevant part provides for 
the nondisclosure of “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which 
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.” 
	8.   The Supreme Court set forth the test for the 1-19(b)(2), G.S., exemption in 
Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993).  
Specifically, the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, 
medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records 
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure 
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two 
elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public 
concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
	9.   It is found that the report is a “similar” file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), 
G.S.  See Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 201 Conn. 421, 433 (1986).  
It is further found that certain police employees objected in writing to disclosure of 
portions of the report, citing 1-19(b)(2), G.S.  
	10.   It is also found, however, that the respondents failed to prove that disclosure 
of the requested records would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.  Moreover, 
upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 6, above, it is 
found that such records consist of matters related to the conduct of police officers.  It is 
further found that that the public has a legitimate interest in the actions and integrity of its 
police personnel.  Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 201 Conn. 421, 433 
(1986).
	11.  Therefore, it is concluded that the in-camera documents described in 
paragraph 6, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
	12.  The respondents also contend that 1-19(b)(3), G.S., exempts certain of the 
in-camera documents described in paragraph 6, above. 
	13.  Section 1-19(b)(3), G.S., provides that various records shall be exempt from 
mandatory disclosure, including:
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 (A) the 
identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity 
of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be 
endangered or who would be subject to threat or 
intimidation if their identity was made known, (B) signed 
statements of witnesses, (C) information to be used in a 
prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such 
action, (D) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to 
the general public….
	14.  Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 6, 
above, it is found that, except as noted below, such documents were not compiled in 
connection with the detection or investigation of a crime.  Rather, the report was 
commissioned by the respondent department to investigate allegations of certain internal 
improprieties.  Thus, except as noted below, the report does not meet a required criterion 
of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.  The respondents contend that, since the report has been forwarded to 
the State Police for review with respect to a possible criminal investigation, it should be 
considered as a record of a law enforcement agency compiled in connection with the 
detection or investigation of crime.  However, it is found that such contention is without 
merit because the report was not “compiled in connection with the detection or 
investigation of crime.”   
	15.  It is therefore concluded that, except as noted below, the report is not exempt 
from mandatory disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
	16.  It is also found, however, that certain of the documents submitted for in-
camera inspection were, at their creation, compiled by the respondent department in 
connection with the investigation or detection of crime.  Such records therefore meet the 
compilation criterion of 1-19(b)(3), G.S., and are specified as follows:  in-camera 
document #s 1997-422-exhibit-25A, 25B, 25C, 26O (2nd, 3rd, and 4th pages only), 97, 98, 
99, 113, 114, and 115.   
	17.  It is found that in-camera document # 1997-422-exhibit-113 identifies a 
confidential informant within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S., and it is therefore 
concluded that such document is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to that 
provision.  Accordingly, the respondents did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by denying the 
complainants a copy of  in-camera document # 1997-422-exhibit-113.  
	18.  It is found that in-camera document #s 1997-422-exhibit-25A, 25B, 25C, 26O 
(2nd, 3rd, and 4th pages only), 97, 98, 99, 114, and 115 were, at their creation, materials 
consisting of information to be used in then prospective law enforcement actions.  
However, it is also found that such documents are now several years old and that the 
respondents failed to prove that law enforcement actions arising from such documents are 
prospective at this time, or that disclosure of such documents would prejudice any such 
actions.  Accordingly, 1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S., does not exempt such documents from 
mandatory disclosure.  
	19.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S., by 
failing to promptly provide the complainants with a copy of the report, with the exception 
of in-camera document # 1997-422-exhibit-113.   
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.   The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with a copy of the 
report, with the exception of in-camera document # 1997-422-exhibit-113.   
	2.   Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with requirements of the 
FOI Act.
							
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of September 9, 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:
Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. and
Greenwich Time
20 East Elm Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
Chief, Greenwich Police Department, 
Town of Greenwich; and Greenwich Police 
Department, Town of Greenwich
c/o Atty. Joyce H. Young
Town of Greenwich Law Department
101 Field Point Road -  P O Box 2540
Greenwich, CT 06836-2540 
and
c/o Atty. John E. Meerbergen
Bleakley, Platt & Schmidt
66 Field Point Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
Silver Shield Association Inc.
c/o Atty. Cary L. Fleisher
41 West Putnam Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06830


__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-422/FD/mrb09151998