FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Donald L. Bernardo,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-187

 

Weapons Unit, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,

 

                        Respondent                  May 8, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 7, 1990, 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 filed with this Commission on May 18, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent partially denied his request for public records under the FOI Act.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated January 13, 1990, the complainant requested of the respondent a copy of the record of all holders of state-issued permits for carrying pistols or revolvers as issued under 29-28, G.S., including the name, full address and expiration date of all such holders.

 

            4.  It is also found that after correspondence between the parties establishing that the complainant agreed to a cost of $2,400 for such records, by letter dated May 7, 1990, the respondent agreed to provide a list of names and respective expiration dates, but refused to disclose the permitees' addresses (including the requested "address, city, state and zip code"), which addresses are the sole records at issue in this case.

 

            5.  At the hearing, the following groups were granted intervenor status:  the state police union, AFSCME on behalf of the corrections officers bargaining unit, and the Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance.

 

Docket #FIC 90-187                           Page 2

 

            6.  The complainant noted that there exists no statutory exemption to disclosure of the addresses he seeks.

 

            7.  It is found that at the time of the hearing, approximately 103,000 permits were in effect in the State of Connecticut.

 

            8.  The respondent claims that the address information contained in the records at issue could constitute a "shopping list" of locations for criminals who wish to steal firearms.

 

            9.         It is found that address information is routinely available from other public sources such as telephone directories and voter registration lists.

 

            10.       It is also found that individuals who supply gun permit information are allowed to supply post office boxes as their addresses.

 

            11.       It is also found that the application information is retained both on a computer base and on 3x5 inch cards in a card file.

 

            12.       It is concluded that the requested records are not contained in a personnel, medical or similar file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

            13.       It is also concluded that, pursuant to City of Hartford v. Krieg, Docket No. 14 18 67, Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County, Memorandum of Decision dated December 1977 (Kinney, J.), holders of gun permits do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in their applications.

 

            14.       It is also concluded that the respondent failed to prove the requested records are exempt from disclosure under any state statute or federal law.

 

            15.       It is concluded therefore that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose the requested records.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

            1.         The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant a copy of the requested record, as described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the findings, above.

 

Docket #FIC 90-187                           Page 3

 

            2.         Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 8, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-187                           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:

DONALD L. BERNARDO

80 Thorson Road

Oxford, CT 06483

 

WEAPONS UNIT, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE

c/o Stephen R. Sarnoski, Esq., Assistant Attorney General

MacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

            INTERVENORS

 

CONNECTICUT SPORTSMAN ALLIANCE

c/o Robert T. Crook

408 Copse Road

Madison, CT 06443

 

STATE POLICE UNION

c/o Robert J. Krzys, Esq.

97 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106-1515

 

AFSCME

c/o Barbara J. Collins, Esq.

Gagne & Collins

207 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission