FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Richard H. Kosinski,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2003-462

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

 
  Respondent September 22, 2004
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 3, 2004, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, the above captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2004-057, Richard H. Kosinski v. State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Freedom of Information Office.

 

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 1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated November 6, 2003, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of “records or information . . . concerning the following: reported to CSP 2/15/03; alleged sexual assault on Karen J. Cupe; York Correctional Institution, Niantic, CT; assault allegedly occurred 2/12/03” (hereinafter “the requested records”).

 

3.      By letter dated December 4, 2003, the respondent denied the complainant’s records request claiming that the requested records contain uncorroborated allegations and are not disclosable pursuant to 1-210(b)(3)(G) and 1-216, G.S. 

 

4.      By letter dated December 26, 2003, and filed on December 30, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him the requested records.

 

5.      Section 1-210(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, 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 the right to . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. 

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.      Section 1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of:

 

[r]ecords 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 subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216.

 

9.      Section 1-216, G.S., further provides that:

 

[e]xcept 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.

 

10.   The respondent submitted the requested records to the Commission for in camera review.  Such records have been identified as in-camera documents #FIC2003-462-1 through FIC2003-462-25.

 

11.   It is found that the requested records constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of 1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

12.   It is also found that the requested records contain allegations that were not supported or confirmed by any new evidence and therefore constitute uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction, within the meaning of 1-210(b)(3)(G), and 1-216, G.S.

 

13.   It is therefore concluded that the requested records are not subject to mandatory disclosure and consequently, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act when he denied the complainant’s request for a copy of such 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 September 22, 2004.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

            Richard H. Kosinski

106 Farmington Avenue

Suite 2B

New Britain, CT 06053

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-462FD/paj/9/23/2004