FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Jack Dolan and The Hartford Courant,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 

 Docket #FIC 1999-514

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety; Legal
Advisor, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety; and
State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety,

 

 

Respondents

May 10, 2000

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 14, 2000, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

[formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]

 

            2.  It is found that, by letter dated September 15, 1999, the complainants requested that the respondents furnish them with a digital copy of all the fields of information typically produced on a rap sheet for every adult within the respondents’ database.   By such letter, the complainants agreed to pay costs in compliance with §1-212(b), G.S. [formerly §1-15(b), G.S.]

 

            3.  It is found that an individual’s rap sheet is that person’s criminal history.

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated September 16, 1999, the respondents informed the complainants that requests for criminal history are governed by §29-11, G.S., which imposes a fee of $25.00 per criminal history record search, and that dates of birth or social security numbers would be redacted before providing the information requested in paragraph 2, above.     

 

5.   It is found that, by letter dated October 20, 1999, the complainants requested clarification of the letter described in paragraph 4, above.

 

6.  It is found that, by letter dated October 29, 1999, the respondents informed the complainants that the database at issue contains both public and non-public information, that they will conduct a criminal history record search for $25.00 per search and that they are prohibited from disclosing non-conviction information.  It is further found that, by such letter, the respondents estimated that the cost of complying with the request described in paragraph 2, above, would be $20,375,000 (815,000 names multiplied by $25.00 per search).  The respondents further informed the complainants that approximately 323,000 names are subject to disclosure, and that pardons and criminal appeals change the status of the availability of information on a daily basis.

 

 7.  By letter dated November 3, 1999, and filed on November 4, 1999, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the estimated fee described in paragraph 6, above, was in violation of the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act, and that the respondents’ imposition of such a fee denied them access to the copy requested in paragraph 2, above. 

 

            8.  It is found that the complainants do not dispute the redactions proposed by the respondents; rather, their complaint is limited to the issue of the estimated fee.  Accordingly, the issue of redactions shall not be addressed herein. 

 

9.  The complainants contend that they do not seek a criminal history record search of each name in the respondents’ database, but rather a copy of the database, absent data contained in exempt fields, and, further, that the fee schedule set forth in §1-212, G.S. [formerly §1-15, G.S.], controls. 

 

10.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(5), G.S.].                                        

 

            11.  Section 1-210(a), G. S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained 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 1-212….

 

                        (Emphasis added.)

 

            12.  Section 1-212, G. S. [formerly §1-15, G.S.], provides in relevant part:

 

(a) [a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.  The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the [FOI] Act:

 

(b)  The fee for any copy provided in accordance with subsection (a) of section 1-211 shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency….  In determining such costs for a copy, other than for a printout which exists at the time that the agency responds to the request for such copy, an agency may include only:

 

(1)  An amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to all agency employees engaged in providing the requested computer-stored public record, including their time performing the formatting or programming functions necessary to provide the copy as requested, but not including search or retrieval costs except as provided in subdivision (4) of this subsection;

 

(2)  An amount equal to the cost to the agency of engaging an outside professional electronic copying service to provide such copying services, if such service is necessary to provide the copying as requested;

 

(3)  The actual cost of the storage devices or media provided to the person making the request in complying with such request; and

 

(4)  The computer time charges incurred by the agency in providing the requested computer-stored public record where another agency or contractor provides the agency with computer storage and retrieval services….

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

            13.  Section 1-211(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19a(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part:

 

[a]ny public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the [FOI] Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.  Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

            14.  Section 29-11(c), G.S., provides in relevant part:  

 

[t]he Commissioner of Public Safety shall charge the following fees for the service indicated:  (1) Name search, eighteen dollars;  (2) fingerprint search, twenty-five dollars;  (3) personal record search, twenty-five dollars;  (4) letters of good conduct search, twenty-five dollars;  (5) bar association search, twenty-five dollars;  (6) fingerprinting, five dollars;  (7) criminal history record information search, twenty-five dollars….

 

            15.   It is found that the request for a copy of the respondents’ database, as described in paragraph 2, above, constitutes a request under §29-11, G.S. 

 

16.  It is concluded that §29-11, G.S., which establishes a charge of $25.00 per criminal history record information search, supersedes §1-212, G. S. [formerly §1-15, G.S.].  Accordingly, the fee assessed as described in paragraph 6, above, did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint. 

 

            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

May 10, 2000.

 

 

 

_________________________

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:

 

 

Jack Dolan and The Hartford Courant

c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP

CityPlace – 35th Floor

Hartford, CT  06103-3488

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; Legal

Advisor, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; and

State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-514FD/mes/05/15/00