FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Donna F. Masi and Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Watertown,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 89-347

 

Watertown Police Department,

 

                                Respondent                          December 13, 1989

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 2, 1989, at which time the complainants 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 August 30, 1989, the complainants requested copies of the respondent's records regarding the number and types of incidents and arrests that occurred at shopping centers in Watertown from 1984 to the present time.

 

                3.  By letter dated September 9, 1989 and filed with this Commission on September 12, 1989, the complainants appealed the respondent's September 7, 1989 verbal denial of this request.

 

                4.  At hearing, the complainants amended their complaint to limit their request to only those records for the period from September 30, 1988 to September 30, 1989.

 

                5.  It is found that the information sought by the complainants does not currently exist in any single document or report.

 

                6.  It is found that the respondent has on file thousands of complaint cards containing information received by a police  dispatcher including a case and code number, and usually the nature of the complaint, the time of the event, the time at which an officer arrived at the scene, and what action if any the officer took.

 

Docket #FIC 89-354                                             Page 2

 

                7.  It is found that approximately 29,000 such cards were generated by the respondent from September 30, 1988 to October 2, 1989 alone.

 

                8.  It is found that the detail level of the contents of these complaint cards varies.

 

                9.  It is found that these cards also contain information including the names and addresses of sexual assault victims, the identities of juvenile offenders, the identification of police informants as well as other sensitive information not otherwise made available to the public by the respondent.

 

                10.  It is found that some of the information on these cards sought by the complainants is encoded, and that the complainants would also require access to the respondent's code-sheet in order to decipher some of the information sought.

 

                11.  It is found that these codes are used to safeguard the public and eliminate the possibility of criminals decoding radio transmissions of police work in progress during the commission of crimes.

 

                12.  It is found that on occasion, the code language is changed by the respondent to prevent its use by non-police personnel.

 

                13.  It is found that the respondent restricted the complainants' access to the cards because of the information contained therein and more specifically described in paragraph 9, above, and access to the code sheet pursuant to its procedures referred to in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, above.

 

                14.  It is concluded that although the requested information is not specifically exempt from disclosure, under the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case, the Commission declines to order disclosure of the records in question.

 

                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.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1989.

 

                                                                     

                                                Tina C. Frappier

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-354                                             Page 3

 

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:

DONNA F. MASI AND CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF WATERTOWN

33 Pleasantview Street

Oakville, CT 06779

 

WATERTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o  Mark N. Stephen, Esquire

Slavin and Stauffacher

P.O. Box A

48 Woodruff Avenue

Watertown, CT 06795

 

                                                                     

                                                Tina C. Frappier

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission