FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 24, 2000, 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.      By letters dated November 12, 1999 and November 24, 1999, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of any police reports, tapes, dispatch log(s), broadcast tapes, 911 calls and/or complaints received and/or acted upon by the East Hartford Police department regarding:

 

a.       a police chase of Lakshmikanth Rao on or about October 10, 1999; and

 

b.      an automobile accident involving Lakshmikanth Rao and/or Jacquline Guadino on Oakland Street in Manchester, Connecticut on or about October 10, 1999 at approximately 2:27 military time.

 

3.      By letter to the complainant dated December 1, 1999, the respondent denied the complainant’s request claiming that the records could not be released because the “information at the present time . . . remains a pending case in the Manchester Police Department.”

 

4.      By letter dated and filed with this Commission on December 29, 1999, the complainant appealed the respondent’s decision to deny his request for a copy of the broadcast tapes as described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

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

 

[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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

6.  Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny 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 records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

 

8.   It is found that the only records that remain at issue are the broadcast tapes regarding the incidents described in paragraphs 2a and 2b, above.

 

9.   At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the broadcast tapes are records pertaining to pending claims or pending litigation to which the City of Hartford is a party and therefore the broadcast tapes are exempt from mandatory disclosure under §1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.]

 

10.  Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.] provides in relevant part that “[n]othing in the Freedom of Information Act  shall be construed  to require the disclosure of . . . [r]ecords pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the pubic agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled . . . .”

 

11.  It is found that the City of East Hartford was served with notice of intent to institute a lawsuit on February 22, 2000, which intention is based on allegations pertaining to the incidents described in paragraphs 2a and 2b, above, and as a result, the City is a party to pending litigation within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.]. 

 

12.  It is also found that the exemption did not apply at the date of the request, the denial, or even at the date of the complainant’s appeal to this Commission.

 

13.  It is further found that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the broadcast tapes are records pertaining to “strategy and negotiations” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.]. 

 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the exemption found in §1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.], may not be applied in this case. 

 

15.  It is further found that the respondent’s initial basis for denying the complainant’s request, as described in paragraph 3, above, does not constitute an exemption to the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

16.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §1-210(b)(4), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(4), G.S.], by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the broadcast tapes, as described in paragraph 2, above.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

1.      The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the broadcast tapes, as described in paragraphs 2a and 2b of the findings, above, free of charge.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

Jon L. Schoenhorn

c/o Tracey M. Lane, Esq.

Schoenhorn & Associates

97 Oak Street

Hartford, CT  06106-1515

 

Records Supervisor, Police Department, Town of East Hartford

c/o Jose R. Ramirez, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT  06108 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-614FD/mrb/05/17/00