FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

William Bailey,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-149

 

Office of Internal Affairs, Bridgeport Police Department,

 

                        Respondent                  December 18, 1989

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 25, 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.  The complainant is a police officer with the Bridgeport

Police Department, and the subject of an internal affairs investigation by the respondent.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent's investigation of the complainant began on September 9, 1987, and was initiated as the result of a citizen's complaint made in the form of an unsworn statement.

 

            4.  It is found that the complaint of September 9, 1987 included allegations of administrative and criminal misconduct.  The inquiry into the charges was handled as one investigation, and the information compiled was maintained as a single file.

 

            5.  It is also found that in connection with its investigation against the complainant, the respondent has contacted eighteen persons, three of whom were minors.  The respondent has a record of the names of the eighteen people interviewed, and the name of the individual who filed the complaint which generated the investigation.

 

            6.  By letter of request dated April 20, 1989 the complainant sought the name of the individual who filed the complaint against him on September 9, 1987, and the names of any individuals who had been interviewed in connection with the complaint.

 

Docket #FIC 89-149                                      Page 2

 

            7.  The complainant's request for information was denied by the respondent by letter dated April 21, 1989.

 

            8.  Having received an unfavorable response to his request, the complainant appealed to this Commission by letter of complaint dated April 25, 1989, and filed with the Commission on April 27, 1989.

 

            9.  The respondent contends that the information sought by the complainant is not subject to disclosure because it falls within the permissive nondisclosure provisions of 1-19(b)(3)(A) and 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.

 

            10.  It is found that the requested information is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            11.  It is also found that the information sought by the complainant was " compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime" as set forth in 1-19(b)(3), G.S., specifically 1-19(b)(3)(A) and 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.

 

            12.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent did not violate 1-19(b)(3), G.S.

 

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.

 

            2.  The Commission notes that nothing in 1-19(b)(3), G.S., precludes the respondent from giving the complainant some or all of the information he requested, especially since it has been determined that no law enforcement action will be instituted in this matter.

 

            3.  The Commission recommends that the respondent carefully consider the implementation of a policy of maintaining separate files where an investigation is identified as having both administrative and potential criminal components, even if handled as one investigation.  Institution of a bifurcated record keeping procedure for a single investigation would enable the Office of Internal Affairs to more readily separate and identify that information which may be subject to nondisclosure under 1-19(b)(3), G.S., without unnecessarily hampering the public's access to otherwise public records.

 

Docket #FIC 89-149                                      Page 3

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 18, 1989.

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-149                                      Page 4

 

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:

WILLIAM BAILEY

P.O. Box 5034

Bridgeport, CT 06610

 

OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, BRIDGEPORT POLICE

c/o Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Esquire

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission