FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

George Lapadula,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 95-51

 

Chief of Police, Middletown Police Department,

 

                        Respondent                  November 8, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 27, 1995, 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.  It is found that on or about May 3, 1994 the complainant filed a complaint form with the mayor of Middletown (hereinafter "mayor") alleging that a file, referred to as the Chadwick file, containing records which pertain to a 1971 court order (hereinafter "the file"), had disappeared from the mayor's office.

 

            3.  It is found that at the direction of the mayor, the respondent conducted an investigation into the alleged disappearance of the file (hereinafter "the investigation").

 

            4.  It is found that on January 24 and February 2, 1995 the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with access to a copy of the investigation file, including the names of all persons interviewed (hereinafter "requested records").

 

            5.  Having failed to receive access to the requested records the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated February 27, 1995 and filed with the Commission on March 1, 1995 alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.

 

            6.  It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by a memorandum dated March 1, 1995.

 

            7.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 95-51                             Page 2

 

            8.  The respondent contends that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(b)(3), G.S.  He also contends that the names of the persons interviewed during the course of the investigation ought to be kept confidential, and further that since he previouly provided the complainant with a copy of the final investigation report it is unnecessary to divulge the other contents of the investigation file.

 

            9.  It is found that the investigation file contains records of the dates and persons interviewed such as former mayors of Middletown, former and present employees of the city of Middletown and the complainant.  The investigation file also contains a record of the substance of the interviewees statements as recorded by the investigating officer.

 

            10.  It is found that none of the interviewees statements were given anonymously or based on any request that their identities be kept confidential.

 

            11.  It is found that the investigation was closed and a final report dated August 24, 1994 prepared, which report concluded that the complainant's allegation of the missing Chadwick file was unfounded, and that no Chadwick file had been maintained in the mayor's office.

 

            12.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., requires disclosure of records maintained by a public agency unless exempt by federal law or state statute.

 

            13  It is found that besides the respondent's generalized claim of confidentiality and counsel's arguments that the requested records are exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(b)(3), G.S., the respondent failed to prove a claim of exemption pursuant to 1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(b)(3), G.S.

 

            14.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainant indicated his willingness to accept the requested records with the names of the interviewees redacted.

 

            15.  In light of findings 12 and 13, above, it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of 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 within one week from the mailing of the notice of the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with a copy of all records contained in the

 

Docket #FIC 95-51                             Page 3

 

investigation file, described more fully in paragraph 9, of the findings, above.

 

            2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all interviewees named in any record contained in the investigation file.

 

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

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-51                             Page 3

 

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:

George Lapadula

54 Highland Terrace

Middletown, CT 06457-4127

 

Chief of Police, Middletown Police Department

c/o Timothy P. Lynch, Esq.

Deputy City Attorney

245 DeKoven Drive

P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT 06457-1300

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission