FIC1999-550

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
James and Susanne Milewski,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC1999-550
Deputy Chief, Police Department, Town of Clinton; and Police Department, Town of Clinton,
		Respondents	May 24, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 2, 2000, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

[formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]

2. It is found that, on November 4, 1999, the complainants requested a copy of an investigative report concerning the conduct of Lieutenant William Chapman during an incident in Old Saybrook on June 18, 1999 [hereinafter “the report”].

3. It is found that, on November 8, 1999, the respondents denied the complainants a copy of the report.

4. By letter filed with the Commission on November 23, 1999, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by the denial described in paragraph 3, above. By such letter, the complainants also alleged that the respondents violated the FOI Act when they refused to answer questions concerning any administrative action contemplated against Lieutenant Chapman. However, it is concluded that public agencies are not required to answer questions pursuant to the FOI Act. Accordingly, the complaint herein is limited in scope to the denial described in paragraph 3, 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…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…."

6. It is concluded that the report is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.]

7. The respondents submitted a copy of the report to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which report has been identified as in-camera document #s: FIC1999-550-1 through 1999-550-34.

8. The respondents contend that the report is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.]

9. Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], in relevant part provides for the nondisclosure of "personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."

10. The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], exemption in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993). Specifically, the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files. Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

11. It is found that the report is a "similar" file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.]

12. Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above, it is found that the following documents pertain to legitimate matters of public concern and, further, that their release would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person within the meaning of Perkins, supra,:

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-1;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-2, excepting the fifth and sixth words in the third line;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-27, excepting, in the last full paragraph, first line, from the tenth word through the end of such line; in the second line of such paragraph, the first word; and in the fourth line of such paragraph, the last two words;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-28, excepting the first numbered paragraph 5, the name in the second numbered paragraph 5, and the last two paragraphs;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-30, last word only;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-31, excepting names of individuals other than Lt. Chapman listed in the paragraph numbered 2, therein;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-32;

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-33, excepting the name in line two of the second to last paragraph; and

in-camera document #: FIC1999-550-34.

13. It is therefore concluded that the in-camera documents described in paragraph 12, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.].

14. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by denying the complainants a copy of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 12, above.

15. It is also found, however, that the remainder of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above, do not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern within the meaning of Perkins, supra.

16. It is also found that release of the information contained in the remainder of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above, would be highly offensive to a reasonable person because such documents contain the kind of intimate details of an individual’s life that are normally private matters, within the meaning of Perkins, supra.

17. It is therefore concluded that the remainder of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above, are permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.].

18. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by denying the complainants copies of the remainder of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above.

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

1. Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainants with a copy of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 12 of the findings, above, free of charge.

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:

James and Susanne Milewski

131 Nod Road

Clinton, CT 06413

Deputy Chief, Police Department, Town of Clinton; and Police Department, Town

of Clinton

c/o Atty. John S. Bennet

PO Box 959

Essex, CT 06426

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1999-550FD/mrb/05/25/00