FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Robert P. Richeson,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2002-079
Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport,
		Respondents	November 13, 2002

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 18, 2002, 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 on February 4, 2002, the complainant, by telephone and in person, requested that Captain Radzimirski of the respondent department provide him with access to inspect “recent motor vehicle accident reports” or Connecticut Uniform Police Accident Reports (hereinafter “requested records”).

 

3.  By letter of complaint dated February 21, 2002 and filed with the Commission on February 25, 2002, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to inspect the requested records.

 

4.  It is found that Captain Radzimirski denied the complainant’s requests, described in paragraph 2, above, on February 4, 2002.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

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.

 

6.  Section 14-108a, G.S., provides, in relevant part:

(a) The Commissioner of Transportation shall prescribe for … each police department …a uniform investigation of accident report, in such form as the commissioner shall prescribe, which form shall be followed in filing all such reports.

(b) In each motor vehicle accident in which any person is killed or injured or in which damage to the property of any one individual, including the operator, in excess of one thousand dollars is sustained, the police officer, agency or individual who, in the regular course of duty, investigates such accident, either at the time of or at the scene of the accident or thereafter, by interviewing the participants or witnesses, shall, within five days after completing such investigation, complete and forward one copy of such report to the Commissioner of Transportation. Such report shall call for and contain all available detailed information to disclose the location and cause of the accident, the conditions then existing, the persons and vehicles involved and the names of the insurance companies issuing their automobile liability policies, as well as the enforcement action taken….

7.  It is found that the records at issue in this case are accident reports created in accordance with §14-108a, G.S.

8.       Section 7-282, G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

The police department of any city, town or borough having or receiving any … reports or photographs made in the investigation of any accident wherein any person has been injured or property damaged shall preserve and retain the same for a period of at least ten years from the date of such accident. Subsequent to the final disposition of any criminal action arising out of an accident, the records hereinbefore specified and the information contained therein shall be open to public inspection, except that such records shall be available to any person involved in the accident subsequent to the issuance of a warrant or summons in such action.

 

9.  It is concluded that §7-282, G.S., is applicable to municipal motor vehicle accident reports where a) any person has been injured or property damaged and b) where any criminal action arose out of the accident, and is pending.

 

10.  It is found that the complainant is not a “person involved in the accident” within the meaning of §7-282, G.S.

 

11.  It is found that the complainant’s initial request to the respondent was for all motor vehicle accident reports, however, during the hearing on this matter, the complainant asserted that he is now seeking those reports that he contends do not involve a “criminal action” within the meaning of §7-282, G.S.

 

12.  The respondent contends that §7-282, G.S., exempts municipal motor vehicle accident reports where there has been an “infraction” and will not disclose such reports for three months, which the respondent claims “ should be sufficient time for the disposition of any criminal action.”[1]   The complainant on the other hand, contends that §7-282 does not apply to motor vehicle accident reports that do not pertain to “crimes” and therefore he should be permitted access to reports such as those concerning “violations” and  “infractions” that do not constitute “crimes”. 

 

13.  The term “criminal action” is not defined in the Connecticut General Statutes.  However, §53a-24, G.S., of the State Penal Code provides:

(a) The term "offense" means any crime or violation which constitutes a breach of any law of this state or any other state, federal law or local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine, or both, may be imposed, except one that defines a motor vehicle violation or is deemed to be an infraction.  The term "crime" comprises felonies and misdemeanors.  Every offense which is not a "crime" is a "violation". Conviction of a violation shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense. [Emphasis added.]

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the provisions of sections 53a-28 to 53a-44, inclusive, [dealing with sentences and sentencing procedure] shall apply to motor vehicle violations.  Said provisions shall apply to convictions under section 21a-278 except that the execution of any mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the provisions of said section may not be suspended.

15.  It is concluded that the term “criminal action”, as used in §7-282, G.S., necessarily pertains to a “crime” as defined in the State Penal Code.  It is further concluded that no criminal action arises in the absence of an alleged “crime”. 

 

16.  It is also concluded that pursuant to §53a-24(a), G.S., motor vehicle offenses are either “violations” or “infractions” and not “crimes”.  In addition, §53a-27(a), G.S., provides that  “[a]n offense, for which the only sentence authorized is a fine, is a violation unless expressly designated an infraction.”  Section 53a-27(b), G.S., further provides that:

 

every violation defined in this chapter is expressly designated as such.  Any offense defined in any other section which is not expressly designated a violation or infraction shall be deemed a violation if, notwithstanding any other express designation, it is within the definition set forth in subsection (a).

 

17.  It is found that the particular offense cited or designated on an accident report will determine whether such offense is deemed a “crime” (i.e. a felony or misdemeanor),  “violation” or “infraction” within the meaning of §§53a-24(a) and 53a-27(a), G.S.

 

18.  It is therefore concluded that the complainant is entitled to access to those municipal motor vehicle accident reports that do not involve “crimes”.  Accordingly, he is entitled to those reports that involve motor vehicle “violations” and “infractions”, which the legislature has specifically not defined as “crimes”.

 

19.  The respondent also claims that the “Accident Severity” information contained on the completed motor vehicle accident reports is exempt from disclosure as a “medical file” pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

20.  It is found that there is a section on the motor vehicle accident report form titled “Accident Severity”, and such section consists of three unchecked boxes, one designated “fatal, one “injury” and the other “PDO”.  The investigating officer checks the appropriate box(es) when completing the accident report.

 

21.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “personnel or medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”

 

22.  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).

 

23.  The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., claim of invasion of privacy in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993). 

 

24.  Specifically, under the Perkins test, 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 such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

25.  It is found that the “Accident Severity” information, as described in paragraph 18, above, does not constitute “medical files” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., because such information does not divulge any medical illness or condition.

 

26.  It is therefore concluded that because the “Accident Severity” information is not a medical file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., such information is not exempt from disclosure.

 

27.  Based on the foregoing it is concluded that the complainant is entitled to municipal motor vehicle accident reports as described in paragraph 18, above, including the “Accident Severity” information contained in such reports. 

 

28.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant agreed with the respondent’s position that the names and addresses of minors under eighteen years of age should not be disclosed.  Consequently, because there is no disagreement between the parties on that issue the Commission will not address it.

 

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 access to inspect those municipal accident reports that involve motor vehicle “violations” and “infractions”, which the legislature has specifically not defined as “crimes”, including the “Accident Severity” information contained on such forms.                                                              

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 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:

 

Robert P. Richeson

Bridgeport Accident Injury Center

251 North Avenue, Suite A-102

Bridgeport, CT 06606

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of Bridgeport

c/o John H. Barton, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-079/FD/paj/11/19/2002