FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ricardo Montanez,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-451
Bridgeport Police Department and Park City Hospital,
Respondents May 22, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
Prior to the hearing, the complainant withdrew his complaint against the respondent Park City Hospital.
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. On October 21, 1990, the complainant requested from the respondent a full copy of records pertaining to a case identified as Case No. 32,528 and a copy of all information related to the complainant.
3. By letter of complaint dated November 17, 1990 and filed on November 21, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to his request for records and that this denial violated the Freedom of Information Act.
4. It is found that the complainant is currently incarcerated at the Somers Correctional Institution where he is serving a murder sentence.
5. It is also found that Case No. 32,528, referenced in the complainant's request, refers to the docket number under which the complainant was found guilty of murder in Bridgeport Superior Court in 1988.
Docket #FIC 90-451 Page 2
6. It is also found that the complainant is in the process of appealing his murder conviction to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
7. It is also found that the complainant is specifically seeking access to investigatory reports, witness statements, photos, police reports and any other information pertaining to the complainant's murder conviction in 1988.
8. It is also found that the respondent never responded to the complainant's October 20, 1990 request for records.
9. At the hearing, the respondent claimed that the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19b(b), G.S.
10. Section 1-19(b)(4), G.S., exempts from disclosure records pertaining to "strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled."
11. It is found that the respondent failed to offer any evidence to show that the records which are the subject of the request pertain to "strategy or negotiations," or that the respondent is a "party" to any pending claim or litigation within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
12. Section 1-19b(b), G.S., provides that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be deemed in any manner to affect the rights of litigants under the laws of discovery of this state.
13. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the records would in any way affect the rights of litigants under the laws of criminal discovery, since the complainant has already been convicted of murder and there are no further discovery proceedings in connection with that conviction, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant's murder conviction is on appeal to the Supreme Court.
14. At the hearing, the respondent also contended that the provisions of 1-19(b)(3), G.S., which exempts certain law enforcement records, might apply to exempt these records from disclosure.
15. It is found that the respondent failed to offer evidence to indicate that any of the exemptions for law enforcement records within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S., would apply to exempt these records from disclosure.
Docket #FIC 90-451 Page 3
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of the records requested by the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The Commission admonishes the respondent for its failure to respond at all to the complainant's request for records.
3. The respondent shall forthwith comply, at its own expense, with the complainant's request for records described in paragraphs 2 and 7, of the findings above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-451 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:
RICARDO MONTANEZ
c/o Jeffrey J. Dowd, Esq.
Legal Assistance to Prisoners
38-40 Hungerford Street
Hartford, CT 06106
BRIDGEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o John H. Barton, Esq.
Office of the City Attorney
City of Bridgeport
202 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
PARK CITY HOSPITAL
c/o JoAnne Carter
Medical Records Department
695 Park Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission