FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Gregory C. Damato,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-291
Records Supervisor, Police Department, Town of Glastonbury,
		Respondents	August 9, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 10, 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.

 

2.  It is found that by letter dated May 31, 2000 the complainant requested that the respondent department provide him with a copy of the police report involving himself and Porch & Patio (hereinafter “requested record”).

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated June 2, 2000, the respondent supervisor denied the request, indicating that the report in Glastonbury police case # 00-007505 could not be released, as it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210, G.S.

 

4.  Having failed to receive the requested record, the complainant, by letter dated June 8, 2000 and filed June 12, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the requested record.

 

5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

"Public records or files means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method."

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., further provides:

 

"Except 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.  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." [Emphasis added.]

 

7.  It is found that the respondent maintains the requested record, and such record is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.  Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., permits the nondisclosure 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 the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known…(G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216."

 

9.  Section 1-216, G.S, further provides:

 

"Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, 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."

10.  The respondent submitted the requested record to the Commission, and an in camera review was conducted.  Such record has been marked as IC# 2000-291-1 through IC# 2000-291-4 for identification purposes.

 

            11.  It is found that IC# 2000-291-1 through IC# 2000-291-4 was compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, and disclosure would reveal the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(A).

 

12.  It is also found that IC# 2000-291-1 through IC# 2000-291-4 contain uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction within the meaning of §§1-210(b)(3)(G), and 1-216, G.S.

 

13.  It is therefore, concluded that the requested record is not subject to mandatory disclosure and consequently, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act when he declined to provide the complainant with a copy of such record.

 

 

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 August 9, 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:

 

 

Gregory C. Damato

660 Kent Lane, Apt. 85-C

Myrtle Beach, SC  29579-3128

 

 

Records Supervisor, Police Department, Town of Glastonbury

c/o Atty. Duncan J. Forsyth

Halloran & Sage, LLP

One Goodwin Square

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-291FD/mrb/08/10/00