The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 3, 1999 at which time the complainants 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.

        2. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on December 7, 1998, and supplemented by letter dated December 23, 1998 and filed on December 28, 1998, the complainants, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them access to certain police investigation reports concerning former Fire Marshal Coleman Bushnell, including complaints made by Messrs. Kelly, Woodard, Snow and Calderella (hereinafter "requested records")

        3. It is found that by letter dated November 13, 1998 the complainants requested the records described in paragraph 2, above.

        4. It is found that by letter dated November 17, 1998, the respondent chief denied the request claiming that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to § 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.

        5. It is found that the respondents maintain records that are responsive to the complainants’ request, and such records are public records within the meaning of § § 1-18a(5) and 1-19(a), G.S.

        6. Section 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., permits the nondisclosure 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 disclosure of … (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c.

        7. Following the hearing on this matter, the requested records were reviewed in camera.

        8. It is found that the requested records were compiled by the respondents in connection with the detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of § 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.

        9. It is also found that the disclosure of the requested records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of § 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.

        10. It is therefore, concluded that the requested records are permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to § 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.

        11. Consequently, it is further concluded that the respondents did not violate § § 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., when they failed to provide the complainants with 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 complaint is hereby dismissed.

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 14, 1999.

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

Jane E. Dee and
The Hartford Courant
265 Old Main Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Chief, Police Department,
Town of Old Saybrook; and
Police Department, Town of
Old Saybrook
c/o Edmund H. Mosca, Chief
Police Department
PO Box 301
255 Main Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-392FD/mrb04161999