FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
In
The Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Mark
S. Rosenblit,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-185
Chief of Police, Hartford
Police
Department; and Records
Manager,
Hartford Police Department,
Respondents February
11, 1998
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 20, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondents
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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G. S. (prior to
October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a), G.S.).
2.
It
is found that by letter dated May 28, 1997, the complainant requested that the
respondent provide him with copies of the records in a master file, numbered
A070455, and copies of incident reports, numbered 97-8514 and 97-17678, as part
of the record of the arrest of Arnold Bernstein.
3.
It
is found that by letter dated June 5, 1997, the respondents denied the
complainant’s request claiming an exemption pursuant to §1-20b, G.S.
4.
By
letter dated June 12, 1997, and filed on June 13,1997, the complainant appealed
to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request for copies of the
records and reports described in paragraph 2, above.
5.
Section
1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part provides:
Except as
otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintain or
kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by
any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person
shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or
business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the
provisions of section 1-15.
6.
Section
1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides:
Any person applying in
writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any
public record.
7.
It
is found that the requested incident reports and the master file records
are public records within the meaning
of §1-18a(5),
G.S.
8.
Section
1-20b(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:
Notwithstanding any
provision of the general statutes to the contrary, and except as otherwise
provided in this section, any record of the arrest of any person, other than a
juvenile, . . . shall be a public record from the time of such arrest and shall
be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15 and subsection
(a) of section 1-19, G.S.
9. Section 1-20b(b), G.S., in turn, provides:
For the purpose of
this section, “record of arrest” means (1) the name and address of the person
arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest and the offense for which the
person was arrested, and (2) at least one of the following, designated by the
law enforcement agency: the arrest report, incident report, news release or
other similar report of the arrest of a person.
10.
It is found that the respondents failed to
provide the complainant with a copy of the master file records.
11.
It is also found that the respondents failed to
provide the complainant with either the requested incident reports, or in lieu
thereof, an arrest report, news release or other similar report of the arrest,
as set forth in §1-20b(b)(2),
G.S.
12.
The respondents contend that because there is a
pending criminal prosecution related to the subject arrest, the requested
records are exempt from disclosure under §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S.
13.
Section 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., in relevant part,
provides:
Nothing in the Freedom
of Information Act shall be deemed in any manner to (1) . . . limit the rights
of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws
of discovery of this state . . .
14.
It is found that §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S., does not supersede the disclosure provisions of 1-20b(a), G.S.
15.
In any event, it is found that the respondents
failed to prove that disclosure of the requested records would limit the rights
of litigants under the laws of discovery in this state, within the meaning of §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S.
16.
It is further found that disclosure of the
requested records would not “limit” the rights of the respondents under the
laws of discovery of this state because, notwithstanding their obligations as
public agencies under the FOI Act, the respondents are not precluded from
asserting any legal claim with respect to discovery in a prospective legal
action. The complainant’s rights under
the FOI Act exist independently from any party’s rights with respect to
discovery in a legal action.
17.
It is therefore concluded that §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S., does not bar disclosure of the requested records.
18.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents,
by failing to provide a copy of the records contained in the master file
violated §1-19(a),
and 1-15(a), G.S.
19.
It is further concluded that the respondents, by
failing to provide copies of the requested incident reports, or in lieu
thereof, a copy of the arrest report, news release or other similar report of
the arrest, violated §1-19(a),
1-15(a), and 1-20b(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1.
The
respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the records
contained in the master file and a copy of the requested incident reports, or
in lieu of such reports, a copy of the arrest reports, news releases, or other
similar reports of the arrest of Arnold Bernstein.
2.
The
respondents henceforth shall strictly comply with the provision of §1-15(a),
1-19(a), 1-20b(a), G.S.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
February 11, 1998.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Mark
S. Rosenblit,
14 Coolidge Road
West Hartford, CT 06117-2318
Chief of Police, Hartford
Police
Department; and Records
Manager,
Hartford Police Department
c/o Atty. Helen Apostolidis
Asst. Corp. Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-185/FD/tcg/02111998