|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
David
Owens and The Hartford Courant, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-296 |
|
Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December
22, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 15, 1999 at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The records at issue were reviewed in camera.
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 §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2. It is found that on or about May 19, 1999 and again by letter dated May 20, 1999, complainant Owens requested that the respondents provide him with a copy of the records of the criminal investigation conducted by the respondents into allegations of misconduct on the part of Mark Sevetz, a former building inspector for the city of Torrington (“requested records”).
3. It is found that the respondents denied the requests on May 19, 1999 and again in writing by letter dated May 25, 1999, indicating that the requested records were exempt from disclosure as they constituted uncorroborated allegations.
4. Having failed to receive a copy of the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated June 23, 1999 and filed on June 23, 1999, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI”) by denying them a copy of the requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.) provides, in relevant part:
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 a right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. [Emphasis added.]
6. Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(3), G.S.) permits the nondisclosure 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 (B) signed statements of witnesses … or (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216.
7. Section 1-216, G.S., (formerly §1-20c, G.S.), further provides:
Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records. If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records.
8. Following the hearing in this matter the respondents submitted the records at issue and an in camera inspection was conducted. Such records consist of 317 pages and have been designated IC#1999-296-1 through IC#1999-296-317 for identification purposes.
9. It is found that the in camera records constitute signed witness statements and records of uncorroborated allegations, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(3), G.S.) and §1-216, G.S., (formerly §1-20c, G.S.). It is further found that such records were compiled by a law enforcement agency in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(3), G.S.
10. It is therefore, concluded that the in camera records are permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(3), G.S.), and therefore, that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), when they failed to provide the complainants with a copy of the requested records.
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
December 22, 1999.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
David Owens and The Hartford Courant
32 City Hall Avenue
Torrington, CT 06790
Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington
c/o Atty. Albert G. Vasko
140 Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-296FD/mrb/12/27/1999