FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Renny C. Mathew,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 Docket #FIC 2001-252

Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven,

 

 

Respondents

August 8, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 5, 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.      By letter dated May 17, 2001 to the respondent, the complainant made a request for a copy of the investigation report regarding the alleged sexual abuse of his daughter. 

 

3.      By letter dated and filed on May 23, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide copies of the requested records.

 

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, 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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

5.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

6.      It is found the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      It is found that on or about September 9, 2000, the New Haven Police Department (hereinafter “NHPD”) initiated an investigation regarding the alleged sexual assault of the complainant’s two year old daughter. 

 

8.      It is found that the NHPD conducted a good faith investigation that included interviews of all possible suspects.

 

9.      It is also found however that after said investigation, the NHPD could not corroborate the allegations of sexual assault and consequently, suspended the investigation on June 29, 2001 and closed the file on or about July 4, 2001.

 

10.   At the hearing on this matter the respondent maintained that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., because the records contain uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S.

 

11.  The respondent submitted the requested records to this Commission for in-camera inspection which records have been identified as in-camera document #s FIC 2001-252-1 through 2001-252-48.

 

12.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure 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 . . . uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216.

 

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

[e]xcept 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.

14.  After careful review of the in-camera documents, it is found that the records are not otherwise available to the public and that they were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

15.  It is also found that disclosure of the in-camera documents would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction within the meaning of §§1-210(b)(3)(G), and 1-216, G.S.

 

16.  It is therefore concluded that the in-camera documents are not subject to mandatory disclosure and consequently, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide the complainant with copies thereof.

 

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 8, 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:

 

Renny C. Mathew

87 Haven Street

New Haven, CT 06513

 

Chief, Police Department

City of New Haven

c/o Donna Chance Dowdie, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

165 Church Street, 4th floor

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-252/FD/paj/08/14/2001