FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Billy G. Hunt, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-192 | |
|
Chief, Police Department, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 12, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 18, 2001, 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 March 28, 2001, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of any and all investigation reports by the respondent and the Waterbury Regional Narcotics Task Force related to the complainant and the Franklin Street Café from December 1998 until June 3, 1999.
3. It is found that, by letter dated April 2, 2001, the respondent denied the complainant copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above.
4.
By letter dated April 5, 2001, and filed with the Commission on April
9, 2001, 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. It is found that the respondent maintains or keeps on file records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above and that such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
8. It is found that the complainant was convicted on felony charges related to a 1999 incident at the Franklin Street Café in Torrington and that such conviction is currently the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Court.
9. The respondent contends that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S.
10. 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 (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…(C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action, (D) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public…
11. At the request of the Commission, the respondent submitted the records at issue for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as IC2001-192-01 through IC2001-192-68.
12. Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 11, above, it is found that in-camera documents IC2001-192-39-41, and 47-68 are not responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above. Accordingly, disclosure of such records will not be considered herein.
13. It is also found that in-camera documents IC2001-192-1-38 and 42-46 are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above. It is further found that the following records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(3)(A)(C) and/or (D), G.S., in that such records reveal the identity of confidential informant(s), undercover operations and techniques, and would be prejudicial to prospective law enforcement actions if disclosed: in-camera documents IC2001-192-15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-30, 35 and 36. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant copies of such records.
14. It is also found, however, that disclosure of in-camera documents IC2001-192-1-14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31-34, 37, 38, and 42-46 would not reveal the identities of informants, witnesses or investigatory techniques otherwise known and would not be prejudicial to a prospective law enforcement action, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(A)(C) and (D), G.S. Accordingly, it is concluded that such records are not exempt by virtue of §1-210(b)(3), G.S., and that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant copies of such records.
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 copies of the following records: in-camera documents IC2001-192-1-14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31-34, 37, 38, and 42-46.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 12, 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:
Chief, Police Department,
City of Torrington
c/o Albert G. Vasko, Esq.
140 Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-192/FD/paj/12/17/2001