FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Leo F. Smith,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-477
State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety,
Respondent November 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 22, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
The Town of Windsor Locks moved to intervene in these proceedings as a party, which motion was denied. At the hearing, the town was granted intervenor status pursuant to 1-21j-28 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
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 October 2, 1990, the complainant requested of the respondent "a copy of the portion of your computer CRIMINAL HISTORY LOG maintained by COLLECT system which reflects all CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS originated by the Windsor Locks Police Department during the past 12 months."
3. By letter dated November 20, 1990, the respondent denied the complainant's request.
4. By letter filed with this Commission on December 10, 1990, the complainant appealed the November 20, 1990 denial of his October 2, 1990 request for records.
5. It is found that the respondent has a unit within its Information Management Section designated as the Connecticut On Line Law Enforcement Communications Teleprocessing System ("COLLECT").
6. The COLLECT system permits computer access to criminal history information.
Docket # FIC 90-477 Page 2
7. The COLLECT unit maintains a criminal history inquiry log which identifies: (a) the officer requesting the record check; (b) the officer transmitting the record check request; (c) the purpose of the record check; (d) the person about whom the record check is made; (e) that person's date of birth; (f) the FBI's "rap" number; and (g) the State Police's ID number.
8. The complainant seeks access only to the identities of those individuals who were the subjects of criminal history records checks by the Windsor Locks Police Department during the period described in paragraph 2, above, as recorded on the COLLECT criminal history inquiry log.
9. The respondent and/or the intervenor contended that such information is exempt from disclosure for the following reasons:
a. The information contained in the records of the State Police Bureau of Identification ("SPBI") is exempt from public disclosure under 29-16, G.S.
b. Disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
c. Disclosure could prejudice a prospective law enforcement action and could prejudice the use of investigatory techniques not generally known to the public and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(B) and (C), G.S.
d. Disclosure would affect discovery rights of the intervenor and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure under 1-19b(b)(1), G.S.
e. Disclosure would diminish the right of the intervenor to defend itself in any action or proceeding and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure under 7-148, G.S.
10. It is found that the requested information exists on a log maintained by the respondent's COLLECT unit rather than the SPBI, a separate unit under the respondent's Information Management Section.
11. Consequently, it is concluded that 29-16, G.S., does not provide an exemption to the disclosure of the requested information.
Docket # FIC 90-477 Page 3
12. It is concluded that neither the requested information nor the log that contains such information constitutes personnel, medical or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S., and consequently neither is exempt from disclosure under that section.
13. Although it is theoretically possible that disclosure of the requested information could be prejudicial to a prospective law enforcement action within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S., it is found that the respondent and the intervenor failed to prove that disclosure of the specific information at issue would even implicate a prospective law enforcement action or would reveal an investigatory technique unknown to the general public. Indeed, the complainant's request itself belies the intervenor's unsubstantiated claim that disclosure would reveal an unknown investigatory technique.
14. Consequently, it is concluded that 1-19(b)(3)(B) and (C), G.S., do not provide an exemption to the disclosure of the requested information.
15. It is found that the respondent and the intervenor failed to prove that disclosure of the specific information at issue would affect discovery rights of the intervenor within the meaning of 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., and consequently it is concluded that such information is not exempt from disclosure under that section.
16. It is found that the respondent and the intervenor failed to prove that disclosure of the specific information at issue would diminish the right of the intervenor to defend itself in any action or proceeding under 7-148, G.S., or indeed to establish that such section provides an exemption to the disclosure of public records under the Freedom of Information Act.
17. Although the respondent and the intervenor failed to prove or establish the applicability of the following laws, the Commission takes notice that some criminal history information, including the name of an individual about whom a COLLECT system records check had been made, may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to various state erasure statutes, such as 54-142 et seq., G.S., and that such information, either by itself or in conjunction with the name of the requesting officer or agency, may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(B).
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket # FIC 90-477 Page 4
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with either (a) a copy of its COLLECT unit criminal history inquiry log which includes the identities of those individuals who were the subjects of criminal history records checks instituted by the Windsor Locks Police Department during the period described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, or (b) an abstract from that log which sets forth the identities of those individuals who were the subjects of criminal history records checks instituted by the Windsor Locks Police Department during the period described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, above, the respondent may redact or otherwise mask or conceal the identities of any individuals whose criminal history information has been erased pursuant to state statute or whose identities are to be used in prospective law enforcement actions and whose identities, if disclosed, either by themselves or in conjunction with a request by the Windsor Locks Police Department, would be prejudicial to such law enforcement actions within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 27, 1991.
Debra R. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 90-477 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:
Leo F. Smith
1060 Mapleton Avenue
Suffield, CT 06078
State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
c/o Margaret Quilter Chapple
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra R. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission