FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Nicholas Karagiannis,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-383
New Haven Police Department and Office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of New Haven,
Respondents May 23, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 20, 1990, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters dated August 28, 1989 and September 21, 1989 the complainant requested the following:
(a). copies of all police applications, and background investigation and incident reports which listed his name or pertained to his application for employment with the New Haven Police Department, (hereinafter "NHPD"), and
(b). all third party information gathered in connection with the aforementioned applications or investigations.
3. In addition, the complainant also requested copies of any recorded oral communication or letter between the NHPD and the Connecticut State Police, (hereinafter "CSP"), between October and December 1987 that concerned him.
4. By letters dated September 15, 1989 and October 5, 1989 the respondents forwarded to the complainant some of the information contained in his applicant file with the exception of:
Docket #FIC 89-383 Page 2
(a). statements and information from third parties or investigating officers, and
(b). the identities of those third parties or investigating officers.
5. By letters dated September 21, 1989 and October 5, 1989 the respondent also informed the complainant that no recorded oral communication or letter between the NHPD and CSP concerning the complainant during the specified time frame exists.
6. On October 16, 1989 the complainant filed his complaint with this Commission alleging that the respondents had failed to provide him with all of the information that he requested.
7. The respondents maintain that they have provided to the complainant all existing information that is subject to disclosure. The respondents contend that disclosure of any information provided by third parties, including the identities of those third parties, resulting from the NHPD's background investigation of the complaint is exempt from disclosure.
8. The respondents maintain that 4-190, et. seq. and 1-19(b)(2), G. S., protect the privacy rights of anyone referred to in the complainant's applicant file despite the fact that the contents of an unsuccessful applicant's file is not a personnel file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G. S.
9. The respondents contend that to disclose the text of third party statements, personal evaluations of investigating police officers concerning the complainant, or the identities of the evaluating parties would constitute an invasion of personal privacy of the individuals providing the information to the NHPD in violation of 4-190, et. seq., and 1-19(b)(2), G. S.
10. The respondents argue that disclosure of the aforementioned information would subject them to damages and reasonable attorneys fees for violation of 4-190 et. seq., G. S.
Docket #FIC 89-383 Page 3
11. Finally, the respondents argue that the third parties provided information to the NHPD because of the NHPD's assurances of confidentiality. The respondents emphasize that the NHPD would be hampered in its ability to properly and effectively conduct background investigations of an applicant if the personal privacy rights of those familiar with the applicant's strengths and weaknesses had their identities and candid statements disclosed to the applicant. Therefore, the respondents assert that disclosure of the requested information would have a chilling effect on the NHPD's ability to solicit and receive candid character recommendations which are absolutely essential to ensure responsible selection of police officers.
12. It is found that the complainant has made several applications to the NHPD for employment as a police officer. As part of its selection processes, the NHPD conducts background investigations of its applicants. In its background investigation of the complainant, the NHPD conducted interviews with individuals who were acquainted with him.
13. It is found that the complainant's applicant file constitutes a personnel or similar file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G. S.
14. It is found that under 4-190(9) and 4-193(g), G. S., the complainant has a right to request and receive disclosure of "...all personal data concerning him which is maintained by the [respondents'] agency."
15. It is also found that under 4-193(g), G. S., an agency is expressly prohibited from disclosing "...any personal data concerning persons other than the requesting person."
16. It is found that disclosure of information identifying third parties would constitute an invasion of personal privacy under 1-19(b)(2), G. S.
17. It is found that with the exception of the information set forth in paragraph 16, above, disclosure of the remaining portions of the complainant's applicant file would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., and therefore are subject to disclosure under 1-15 and 1-19(a), G. S.
18. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G. S., by not providing the complainant with prompt access to the non-exempt information requested by the complainant.
Docket #FIC 89-383 Page 4
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of those records, or those portions of records identified in paragraph 2 of the findings above, which have not already been provided to him, and which are not exempt from disclosure as set forth more particularly in paragraph 16 of the findings above.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondents may redact or delete names and other information that may lead to the identification of any third parties.
3. Henceforth, the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G. S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 23, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-383 Page 5
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:
NICHOLAS KARAGIANNIS
374 Fountain Street
New Haven, CT 06515
NEW HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN
c/o Carolyn Spencer, Esquire
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of New Haven
770 Chapel Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission