FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Diana D. Hede,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-315
John Ambrogio, Chief of
Police, Hamden Police Department,
Respondent May 22, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on February 27, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared 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 by letter dated August 9, 1995, the complainant requested that
she be provided with copies of all police reports and investigation documents
concerning herself, her daughter, Charles Douglas Theroux, and Tracey M.
Norton, from June 1994 through the present ("August request").
3. It
is found that by letter dated August 24, 1995, the respondent's attorney
advised the complainant that her August request had been referred to her for
review and research, and a written response would be forthcoming as
"expeditiously as possible."
4. It
is found that with cover letter dated September 11, 1995, the respondent's
counsel provided the complainant with a copy of an August 9, 1995 case incident
report ("incident report"), and advised the complainant that
additional documentation was being withheld from disclosure pursuant to
1-19(b)(3)(B), 1-19(b)(3)(C), 1-19(b)(3)(G), and 1-20c, G.S.
5. By
letter of complaint dated September 14, 1995, and filed with this Commission on
September 15, 1995, the complainant appealed the respondent's failure to
promptly respond to, and fully comply with her August request.
Docket #FIC 95-315 Page
Two
6. In
her complaint to the Commission, the complainant also requested that a civil
penalty be imposed against the respondent in this matter.
7. It
is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of
1-18a(d), G.S.
8. It
is found that the respondent conducted investigations into allegations of
criminal conduct or activity allegedly concerning or involving each of the four
individuals identified in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.
9. It
is found that by February 1995 the respondent's investigations into the alleged
criminal activity involving those persons identified in paragraph 2 of the
findings, above, had been concluded or terminated.
10. At
the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the requested records
contain uncorroborated allegations of criminal conduct and are therefore exempt
from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., and subject to
destruction in accordance with the provisions of 1-20c, G.S.
11. In
material part, 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides that disclosure shall not be
required of:
(3) 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 disclosure of ...
(G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section
1-20c; ....
12. In
pertinent part, 1-20c, G.S., provides:
records of law enforcement agencies consisting of
uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity
shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of
such records. If the existence of the
alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the
commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such
records.
13. The
respondent submitted the documentation relating to those investigations,
totalling thirty-seven pages and numbered "95-315-1" through
"95-315-16", to the Commission for in camera inspection pursuant to
1-21j-35(f) of the Commission's regulations.
Docket #FIC 95-315 Page
Three
14. After
conducting an in camera inspection of the records submitted by the respondent
the following findings are made:
a) with
respect to in camera document ("IC") 95-315-1, the respondent has not
cited, and the Commission cannot ascertain, any criminal activity, as defined
in the Connecticut General Statutes or the United States Code, to which the
allegations contained in this record might apply;
b) with
respect to IC 95-315-2, the respondent has not cited, and the Commission cannot
ascertain, any criminal activity, as defined in the Connecticut General
Statutes or the United States Code, to which the allegations contained in this
record might apply; nevertheless, corroboration of the allegations contained in
IC 95-315-2 is found in IC 95-315-10, IC 95-315-11 and IC 95-315-12;
c) corroboration
of the allegations contained in IC 95-315-3 is found in IC 95-315-4 and IC
95-315-5;
d) corroboration
of the allegations contained in IC 95-315-4 is found in IC 95-315-6;
e) IC
95-315-7 and IC 95-315-15 are narrative summaries of investigation efforts,
findings and recommendations concerning two separate allegations;
f) corroboration
of the allegations contained in IC 95-315-8 is found in IC 95-315-10;
g) corroboration
of the allegations contained in IC 95-315-9 is found in IC 95-315-2 and IC
95-315-10;
h) corroboration
of the allegations contained in IC 95-315-11 is found in IC 95-315-10 and IC
95-315-12; and
i) IC
95-315-13 and IC 95-315-14 do not contain allegations, but rather document the
existence of certain audio cassette recordings containing statements of Norton
and C. D. Theroux.
j) with
respect to IC 95-315-16, the respondent has not cited, and the Commission
cannot ascertain, any criminal activity, as defined in the Connecticut General
Statutes or the United States Code, to which the allegations contained in this
record might apply; nevertheless, corroboration of the allegations contained in
IC 95-315-16 is found in IC 95-315-16.
Docket #FIC 95-315 Page
Four
15. Therefore,
it is found that the records submitted for in camera inspection do not
constitute uncorroborated allegations of criminal activity, within the meaning
of 1-19(b)(3)(G) and 1-20c, G.S.
16. Consequently,
it is concluded that the records submitted for in camera inspection are not
exempt from public disclosure under 1-19(b)(3)(G) and 1-20c, G.S.,
and that the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S. by not
providing the complainant with prompt access to the subject records.
17. The
Commission declines to issue a civil penalty in this case.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. Forthwith,
the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the requested
records, as more fully described in paragraph 13 of the findings, above, free
of charge, and furnish to the complainant an affidavit stating that the records
provided constitute the only records responsive to the complainant's request.
2. Henceforth,
the respondent shall strictly comply with the public records requirements set
forth in 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
3. In
complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may redact the names
and personally identifying information of third parties who are not the
subjects of the incidents or investigations in question.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-315 Page
Five
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:
Diana D. Hede, DDS
2480 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
John Ambrogio, Chief of
Police, Hamden Police Department
c/o Susan Gruen, Esq.
Hamden Town Attorney
2372 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission