FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Eric Garrison
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 89-76
Supervisor, Unclaimed
Property Division, State of Connecticut Office of the Treasurer
Respondent September
13, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on July 6, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent
is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated February 14, 1989, the complainant requested access to hard bound
"holder reports," which contain information helping to locate people
from the respondent's unclaimed property division. Specifically, the complainant sought access to the social
security numbers contained therein.
3. By letter
dated February 15, 1989, the respondent denied the complainant access to those
portions of the holder reports containing social security numbers only.
4. By letter
dated February 21, 1989 and filed with the Commission on March 2, 1989, the
complainant appealed this denial.
5. It is found
that the complainant is in the business of locating individuals who unknowingly
have assets being held by the respondent, and providing them with this
knowledge for a fee.
6. The respondent
claims social security numbers are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§§1-19(b)(10) and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-76 Page
Two
7. It is found
that the social security numbers requested pursuant to paragraph 2, above, do
not in and of themselves constitute records, tax returns, reports and
statements exempted by federal law or state statutes or communications
privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
8. It is
concluded, therefore, that these social security numbers are not exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(10), G.S.
9. It is found
that social security numbers are used by both the public and private sector for
a wide range of personal identification purposes including but not limited to
use of this number for state and federal taxpayer identification.
10. It is found
that disclosure of social security numbers would allow persons with knowledge
of such numbers to access a wealth of data, including personal, financial, and
tax data concerning the individual assigned that number.
11. It is further
found that portions of that data referred to in paragraph 10, above, if
disclosed over the objection of the subject, would lead to an invasion of
personal privacy under the circumstances of this case.
12. The
Commission notes that in the past it has consistently declined to order
disclosure of social security numbers contained in personnel, medical or
similar files pursuant to §1-19(b)(2) G.S. over the objections of the file
subjects, as such disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
13. Although it
is found that the social security numbers requested pursuant to paragraph 2,
above, are not contained in personnel, medical or similar files as anticipated
by §1-19(b)(2), G.S., under the discreet circumstances presented, the
Commission, as a matter of discretion declines to order disclosure of such
social security numbers because it would lead to an invasion of the personal
privacy of those individuals to whom the numbers belong and who lack the
ability to object to disclosure in this case.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The complaint
is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission
notes that the complainant's purposes can be served without disclosure of
social security numbers to third parties in the following way. The Social Security
Docket #FIC 89-76 Page
3
Administration
("SSA") may forward letters to persons whose whereabouts are unknown
by a sender where monetary or other valuable considerations are involved and
where one may assume the "missing" person is unaware of the
situation. At the complainant's
expense, the respondent could forward the information compiled by the
complainant to the SSA along with the "missing" person's social
security number. Once contacted, an
individual may choose whether to contact the complainant. Although this Commission lacks authority to
enter an order to this effect, the Commission strongly encourages such
cooperative policies on the part of state government.
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
ERIC GARRISON
1696 King Street
Route 5
Enfield, CT 06082
SUPERVISOR, UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY DIVISION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
c/o Jane D. Comerford,
Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of September 13, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission