FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Donald Beck, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-429 |
|
|
Legal Advisor, State of |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 19, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 July 21, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him all unedited witness statements from case H-98-067579, excepting witness names.
3. It is found that, by letter dated July 24, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant, that pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties which resolved the complaint in Docket #FIC 1999-218; Donald Beck v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety [hereinafter “Docket #FIC1999-218”], witness statements from case H-98-067579 would be provided to him, excepting witness identities and any personally identifiable information.
4.
By letter dated August 5, 2000, and filed with the Commission on August
7, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide him
with the requested records, as described in paragraph 2, above.
5. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent failed to properly comply with the settlement agreement described in paragraph 3, above [hereinafter “the agreement”], while the respondent contended that she had properly complied with the agreement, and that the requested witness statements are nonetheless exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S.
6. It is found that the Final Decision in Docket #FIC1999-218 stated that, at the hearing in such matter, “the parties reached a satisfactory agreement which settled the complaint filed by the complainant.” It is further found that the Commission dismissed the complaint in such matter.
7. It is concluded that the agreement described in paragraph 6, above, is a contract between the parties and that the Commission is not the appropriate forum to settle such contractual dispute.
8. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[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 or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
9. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[a]ny person applying in writing
shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public
record. The fee for any copy
provided in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:
10. It is found that the respondent maintains or keeps on file the requested witness statements and that such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
11. Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of:
[r]ecords 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 (B) signed statements of witnesses ….
12. It is found that the requested records constitute signed witness statements compiled by a law enforcement agency in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S., and that, therefore, they are exempt from mandatory disclosure.
13. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with substantial access to the requested records since the final decision issued in Docket #FIC 1999-218. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that such access deprives the respondent of the right to assert an exemption at this time.
14. It is concluded, however, that the access provided by the respondent to the complainant, as described in paragraph 13, above, does not deprive the respondent of the right to assert an exemption in response to the request described in paragraph 2, above.
15. It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
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 February 14, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Donald Beck
312 Shewville Road
Ledyard, CT 06339
Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety,
Legal Affairs Division
c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-429/FD/paj/02/21/2001