FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
William H. Watson and Record Journal,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-61
Wallingford Police Department and Raymond Cromwell,
Respondents February 13, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 31, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. A proposed decision issued by the hearing officer on December 12, 1990 was withdrawn at the January 23, 1991 meeting of the Commission.
The respondents submitted the videotape made of the booking of Brian Connelly on January 15, 1990, for in camera inspection.
At hearing Raymond Cromwell requested and was granted party status pursuant to 1-21i, G.S.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent police department is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed February 15, 1990, the complainants alleged that on February 14, 1990, the respondent police department denied them access to a videotape depicting the booking and detention of Mr. Brian Connelly on January 15, 1990.
3. It is found that the complainants filed a written request for a copy of the videotape described above with the respondent police department on February 13, 1990, and that the request was denied on February 14, 1990.
4. It is found that the videotape is part of an internal investigation of the use of excessive force which led to the
Docket #FIC 90-61 Page Two
suspension of respondent Cromwell for four weeks.
5. It is concluded that the requested record is part of a personnel file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
6. It is found that the respondent police department notified respondent Cromwell of the request for the videotape pursuant to 1-20(b), G.S., and that pursuant to 1-20(c), G.S., respondent Cromwell objected to disclosure.
7. It is found that the videotape was made in the area of the respondent police department which is routinely used for booking.
8. It is found that the booking area of the respondent department is routinely monitored by officers of the respondent department using the same video monitor which made the tape which is at issue herein.
9. It is found that the events pertaining to the booking of Brian Connelly which are recorded on the tape were viewed as they occurred by another officer using the video monitor.
10. It is found that respondent Cromwell did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the videotape recording of his activity in the booking area with Brian Connelly.
11. It is found that the disclosure of the requested videotape would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is concluded that the respondent police department is required to disclose the requested record pursuant to 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent police department shall provide the complainants with a copy of the requested videotape within two weeks of the date the final decision is mailed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 13, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-61 Page Three
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 H. WATSON AND RECORD JOURNAL
11 Crown Street Square
Meriden, CT 06450
WALLINGFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND RAYMOND CROMWELL
c/o Janis M. Small, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission