FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Joan Coe,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2002-083
Chief, Police Department, Town of Simsbury,
		Respondents	October 9, 2002

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 15, 2002, 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 on or about January 11, 2002, the complainant, while listening to her radio scanner, heard a Simsbury police department (hereinafter “the department”) dispatcher call for an officer to report to the address of a private geriatric home to assist an employee who allegedly had a history of psychiatric problems and was combative and slightly hysterical at the time of the call.

 

3.      It is found that on or about January 12, 2002, the complainant made a request to the records administrator of the department for a copy of the incident report with the names redacted and for a copy of the dispatch tape of the conversations regarding the dispatch call described in paragraph 2, above.

 

4.      It is found that the complainant was provided with a copy of the out-going dispatch call but not the in-coming call made from the geriatric home and was informed that the incident report was exempt from disclosure pursuant to the medical exemption of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.

 

5.      It is found that on February 25, 2002, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the incident report and the tape recording of the in-coming dispatch call (hereinafter “the dispatch tape”) and was informed they were exempt from disclosure pursuant to the medical exemption of the FOI Act.

 

6.      By letter dated February 26, 2002 and filed on February 27, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with her request. 

 

7.      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.  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.

 

8.      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 . . . .”

 

9.      It is found that the requested incident report and dispatch tape are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.  At the hearing on this matter and in her letter of complaint, the complainant argued that if the names are redacted from the incident report and with several hundred employees employed at the geriatric home, it would be impossible for her to identify the individual employee involved.  The complainant further argued that 911 tapes are regularly released to the media for public scrutiny and therefore, the in-coming call to the dispatch should be released as well.

 

11.  The respondent contends that the incident report and the dispatch tape constitute medical or similar files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and that the individual’s name and the information contained in the report and on the tape are not a matter of legitimate public concern and that disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.  The respondent argued that disclosure would therefore constitute an invasion of that individual’s personal privacy.  The respondent also contends that the privacy interest of the individual outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 

 

12.  At the hearing on this matter, however, the respondent agreed to provide the complainant with a copy of the dispatch tape provided the call did not disclose any medical information that had not already been disclosed in the out-going dispatch call as described in paragraph 2, above.

 

13.  The respondent submitted the incident report to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera documents #s 2002-083-01 through 2002-083-03.

 

14.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require disclosure of “ . . . medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . . .”

 

15.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in contested case docket #FIC-2001-251; Fred Radford v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (January 2002), with respect to the discussion of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).

 

16.  In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  The claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

 

17.  It is found that a medical complaint was called into the dispatcher of the Simsbury police department on January 11, 2002 regarding an employee of a certain geriatric home as described in paragraph 2, above.

 

18.  It is found that an officer of the department arrived at the scene, made certain observations and wrote an incident report in accordance with department procedure.

 

19.  It is found that the incident report contains information regarding the employee’s past medical condition, and information pertaining to her emotional and mental condition as the officer observed the employee and based on information reported to him by the medical staff at the geriatric home. 

 

20.  It is found, however, that no other action was taken by the officer or the department other than that described in paragraph 17, above.

 

21.  It is further found that the incident report constitutes a “medical” or “similar” file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

22.  It is found that the contents of the incident report do not pertain to the conduct of the public business because the contents of the incident report does not pertain to a public employee or a public facility.

 

23.  It is therefore found that the contents of the incident report do not pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern.

 

24.  It is further found that disclosure of the incident report would disclose intimate medical information about the employee and that disclosure of such information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

25.  It is concluded therefore that disclosure of the incident report would constitute an invasion of the individual employee’s personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and it is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to that provision.

 

26.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

            1.  The complainant is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 2002.

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Joan Coe

26 Whitcomb Drive

Simsbury, CT 06070

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Simsbury

c/o Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.

Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC

One State Street, PO Box 231277

Hartford, CT 06123-1277

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-083/FD/paj/10/10/2002