FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Lucille Vallieres Stager,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-140
State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety,
Division of State Police,
Respondent April 18, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 5, 1994, 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 of complaint filed May 4, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that her requests for certain records had been denied on April 15, 1994, and that she had been overcharged for records that had been provided to her.
2. With respect to the complaint of overcharging, it is found that the complaint paid on or about November 29, 1993 either $16.00 or $18.00 for 20 pages of documents, comprising redacted copies of two investigative reports.
3. Section 29-10b, G.S., provides that the fee charged by the commissioner of public safety for each copy of an investigative report shall be eight dollars on an after July 1, 1993.
5. It is found, however, that the complainant did not file her complaint concerning the purported overcharge until approximately five months after she made payment.
6. Section 1-21i(b), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-19 or ... denied any other
Docket #FIC 94-140 Page 2
right conferred by sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, 1-20a and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, may appeal therefrom to the freedom of information commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial .... [Emphasis added.]
7. It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the portion of the complaint alleging an overcharge for the records received.
8. It is found that the complainant by letter dated April 15, 1994 requested unredacted copies of the investigation reports she had previously received.
9. It is found that the complainant had been provided a copy of the requested records in January, 1994, but that certain information had been redacted from the reports.
10. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request for unredacted copies.
11. It is found that the requested records consist of investigation reports relating to December 14, 1990 charges of assault in the third degree, risk of injury to a child, and sexual assault in the fourth degree; and relating to January 25, 1991 charges of threatening and harassment.
12. It is found that there are no other documents responsive to the complainant's April 15, 1994 request.
13. It is found that the requested reports are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
14. The respondent concedes that the complainant's name was erroneously redacted from the requested reports, and agrees to provide that information to the complainant.
15. The respondent maintains that the other information redacted from the report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(E) and (F), G.S.
16. Section 1-19(b)(3) provides in relevant part that nothing in the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act requires disclosure of:
records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the
Docket #FIC 94-140 Page 3
disclosure of ... (E) the name and address of the victim of a sexual assault under section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b or 53a-73a, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals under section 53-21, or of an attempt thereof or (F) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c ....
17. It is found that the information redacted from the reports is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(E) and (F), G.S.
18. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19, G.S, by providing the redacted records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the redactions of the complainant's name, the respondent shall provide to the complainant copies of the two investigative reports described in the findings, above, without the complainant's name redacted.
2. With respect to the remainder of the allegations, the complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 18, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-140 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:
LUCILLE VALLIERES STAGER
249-B East Street
Stafford Springs, CT 06076-3826
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
c/o Sharon M. Hartley, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission