FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
James S. Patten,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-356
Commanding Officer of the
State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, and
Chief State's Attorney of the State of Connecticut
Respondents April
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 15, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondents
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:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S., except
as limited in paragraph 9, below.
2. The
complainant requested that the respondents allow him to inspect and/or copy:
a. any division of state police records,
investigative files or reports, daily logs, applications, daily activity
sheets, hearing transcripts, internal affairs report or investigations,
civilian complaints, disciplinary hearings or procedures, statements,
transcripts, documents or other written material containing or indexed under
the name of James S. Patten regarding the Torrington Grand Jury investigation,
b. and, as assigned to the Torrington Grand
Jury, budget requests, expenditure estimates and accountings, compilations of
figures of expenditures and worksheets, weekly time sheets, daily time sheets,
and personnel payroll records, including vacation, compensation, sick days and
overtime.
3. Alleging the
respondents denied his request, the complainant appealed to the Commission by
letter dated December
Docket # FIC 87-356 Page
Two
2, 1987, and filed with the
Commission on December 7, 1987.
4. It is found
that the complainant made his request to the respondents by letter dated
November 10, 1987, reiterating a request made by letter dated June 8, 1987.
5. It is found
that the respondents denied the complainant's request by letter dated November
17, 1987, reiterating letters of denial from the state police dated July 8,
1987, and from the respondent chief state's attorney dated June 17, 1987.
6. It is found
that the state police do not maintain the records of grand jury investigations
described in paragraph 2a, above, rather all such investigative records are
maintained by the respondent chief state's attorney's office.
7. It is further
found regarding the records described in paragraph 2b, above, that the state
police do not maintain separate financial or personnel information for a grand
jury investigation, that most such information is indistinguishable from other
financial and personnel information, and that finding portions of those records
that could be attributed to the Torrington grand jury investigation would
demand research not required by the Freedom of Information Act.
8. It is found
that the records described in paragraph 2a, above, relate to functions of the
division of criminal justice that are not administrative.
9. It is
concluded, therefore, that under §1-19c, G.S., the respondent chief state's
attorney is not a public agency with respect to the records described in
paragraph 2a, above, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to rule on the
disclosability of those records.
10. It is also
found that parts of each of the records described in paragraph 2b, above,
reveal investigative information and thus pertain to functions of the division
of criminal justice that are not administrative.
11. It is
concluded that to the extent these records reveal investigative information,
the respondent chief state's attorney is not a public agency with respect to
them, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to rule on their disclosability.
12. In addition
it is found that the respondent chief state's attorney does not maintain
separate financial or
Docket #FIC 87-356 Page
Three
personnel information for a
particular investigation, that most such information is indistinguishable from
other financial and personnel information, and that finding those records that
could be attributed to the Torrington Grand Jury would demand research not
required by the Freedom of Information Act.
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 April 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission