FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 2, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Mr. George A. Ruhe was granted party status pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S.  The records at issue were submitted for in-camera inspection.

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 on April 14, 1999, an officer from the respondent department responded to an oral complaint made by the complainant in this matter concerning a dispute at the Wethersfield Town Hall. The officer interviewed the complainant, the alleged victim and suspect, and three witnesses.

 

3.      It is further found that the officer described in paragraph 2, above, wrote a report regarding the incident.

 

4.      It is found that on October 20, 1999, the complainant made a request to the respondents for access to the police report that “documents the facts of an incident in the Wethersfield Town Hall, where Chairman George Ruhe made physical contact with public access volunteer Steve Signor,” and was denied access to such report on that date.

 

5.      By letter dated and filed on October 20, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request, as described in paragraph 4, above.

 

            6.      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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. 

 

7.      It is found that the requested report, as described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

 

8.      The respondents contend that the requested report is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.], because the report concerns the investigation of an alleged crime, specifically the alleged assault of Mr. Signor by Mr. Ruhe, which allegation was uncorroborated.

 

9.      Section 1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:

 

 “[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure 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 disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of   . . . uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216 . . .”

 

10.    Section 1-216, G.S. [formerly §1-21c, G.S.], provides in relevant part that:

 

 “. . . 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.” 

 

11.  The respondents submitted the requested report to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which report has been identified as in-camera documents #s 1999-493-01 through 1999-493-03.

 

12.  Upon inspect of the in-camera documents, it is found that the requested report was compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime and contains uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §§1-210(b)(3)(G) and 1-216, G.S., [formerly §1-19(b)(3)(G) and formerly §1-21c, G.S.].

 

13.  It is therefore concluded that the requested report is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.].

 

14.  It is further concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by denying the complainant access to the requested report.

 

 

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 24, 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:

 

 

Edward Peruta
c/o Atty. Brian M. Silver
Law Office of Daniel A. Silver
One Liberty Square
New Britain, CT  06050-0698

 

John S. Karangekis, Chief, Police Department, Town of Wethersfield; and Police Department, Town of Wethersfield
c/o Atty. John W. Bradley
Rome McGuigan Sabanosh, PC
One State Street
Hartford, CT  06103 

 

George A. Ruhe
c/o Atty. Jonathan W. Ruhe
415 Silas Deane Highway, Suite 304
Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
 

FIC1999-493FD/mrb/05/25/00