FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Elizabeth Ganga and Connecticut Post, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-118 |
|
|
Police Department, Town of Stratford, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 28, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 24, 2000, at which time the complainants 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.
2. It is found that, by letter dated March 7, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with a copy of a recently concluded internal affairs investigation of an allegation made against a Stratford police officer [hereinafter "the report"], which request was denied.
3. By letter dated March 8, 2000, and filed with the Commission on March 9, 2000, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of the denial described in paragraph 2, above.
4. Section 1-210(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…."
5. It is concluded that the report is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
6. The respondent submitted a copy of the report to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which report has been identified as in-camera document #s: FIC2000-118-1 through 2000-118-50.
7. The respondent contends that the report is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(2) and 1-214(c), G.S.
8. Section 1-214(b), G.S., in relevant part states:
“[w]henever a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar files and the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing (1) each employee concerned, provided such notice shall not be required to be in writing where impractical due to the large number of employees concerned and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee concerned….”
9. Section 1-214(c), G.S., in relevant part states:
“[a] public agency which has provided notice under subsection (b) of this section shall disclose the records requested unless it receives a written objection from the employee concerned…Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection, the agency shall not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information Commission pursuant to section 1-206….”
10. It is found that the respondent timely notified the subject of the report about the request described in paragraph 2, above, and that such officer timely filed an objection to disclosure, within the meaning of §1-214, G.S.
11. Section 1-210(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."
12. The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(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.
13. It is found that the report is a "similar" file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
14. It is also found that the allegation that is the subject of the report relates to matters that occurred more than thirty years ago, when the officer was approximately eight years of age.
15. Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 6, above, it is found that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
16. It is also found that, if released, the information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person within the meaning of Perkins, supra, because it identifies three minor children and details extremely personal and intimate facts about such children.
17. It is therefore concluded that the in-camera documents are permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
18. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainants access to, or a copy of, the 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
June 28, 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:
Elizabeth Ganga and Connecticut Post
410 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Police Department, Town of Stratford
c/o Atty. Dean R. Singewald, II
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour