FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Deborah Scott, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-152 |
|
|
Chief, Police Department, Town of Stratford |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 23, 2001, 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 February 27, 2001, the complainant requested that the respondent
department provide her with “information regarding police reports affidavits
and phone call complaints that were anonymously made to the Stratford police
department on September 22 and October 26 or 27….”
(hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that by letter dated February 28, 2001, the complainant also sent a copy of her February 27, 2001 request by certified mail to the respondent, again requesting the records described in paragraph 2, above.
4. Having failed
to receive the requested records, the complainant, by letter dated March 15,
2001 and filed with the Commission on March 19, 2001, appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
Act by failing to provide her with access to the requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., 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. [Emphasis added.]
6. It is found that the respondent maintains a tape recording of two telephone calls received by the respondent department from an anonymous caller on September 22, and October 27, 2000, respectively. It is also found that the respondent maintains records pertaining to the complainant’s October 27, 2000 arrest and pending court case.
7. It is concluded that the records described in paragraph 6, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. The respondent contends that the tape recordings of the two telephone calls (hereinafter “tape recordings”) are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S., which permits law enforcement agencies to withhold from disclosure:
“[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 (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.
9. It is found that the tape recordings constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.
10. It is also found that the anonymous caller requested anonymity when asked by the respondent if he/she would like to identify him/herself at the time the calls were being made.
11. It is found that disclosure of the tape recordings would result in the disclosure of 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, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S.
12. Consequently, it is concluded
that the tape recordings are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to
§1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S., and therefore the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by
failing to disclose the tape recordings to the complainant.
13. With respect to the records concerning the complainant’s arrest and court case maintained by the respondent, and described in paragraph 6, above, it is found that such case is presently pending in criminal court. It is also found that the complainant is dealing with the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) in connection with her children being removed from her home.
14. The complainant
contends that her records request included a request for “police reports”
and all records pertaining to her arrest and court case, which followed the
respondent’s receipt of the anonymous telephone calls.
15. It is found that the respondent has not provided the complainant with the police report and records concerning her case because such case is “pending.” The respondent indicated at the hearing in this matter that counsel for the complainant handling the criminal case should have, and would have access to a copy of the police report and other records concerning the complainant’s court case.
16. It is concluded however, that the respondent failed to prove that the police report and records concerning the complainant’s arrest and pending case are exempt from disclosure pursuant to any federal law or state statute in accordance with §1-210(a), G.S. The fact that a case is “pending” is not by itself a permissible reason for withholding public records from disclosure.
17. Consequently, a copy of the records concerning the complainant’s arrest and pending case should be provided to her.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the records it maintains concerning the complainant’s arrest and pending court case.