FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 27, 2004, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. [1]   

           

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 December 27, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with:

 

a)                  any and all non-exempt public records or files, including any recorded data or information concerning, or the subject of which is Anthony Joseph Sinchak, also known as T-Bone Sinchak or Tony Sinchak, retained by the respondent; and

b)                 any and all non-exempt public records or files, including any recorded data or information concerning, or the subject of which is the Helter-Skelter Motorcycle Club also known as HSMC, retained by the respondent.

 

             3.  It is found that by letter dated January 6, 2003, the respondent (through counsel) acknowledged receipt of the request and informed the complainant that upon completion of his review “those documents that may relate to your request will be forwarded to the Dept. of Corrections.  That office will also review the documents and make a determination as to what materials may be released to you.”

 

            4.  It is found that by letter dated January 27, 2003, the complainant followed up with counsel for the respondent requesting an update regarding the status of his request and indicating that he had not received any of the requested records, or any acknowledgement of their receipt by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). 

 

            5.   Thereafter, by undated letter filed with this Commission on February 6, 2003, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him a copy of the requested records. 

 

6.  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 …receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

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

 

8.  It is found that the respondent maintains or keeps on file the records that are at issue in this case.

 

9.  The respondent contends that the records at issue are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(A),(B),(D), 1-210(b)(18) and 1-210(c), G.S. 

 

10.  Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., exempts from public disclosure:

 

Records 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, (B) signed statements of witnesses …(D) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public.

 

11.  Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure:

                       

[r]ecords, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction….

            12.  Section 1-210(c), G, S., in relevant part, provides: 

(c) Whenever a public agency receives a request from any person confined in a correctional institution … for disclosure of any public record under the Freedom of Information Act, the public agency shall promptly notify the Commissioner of Correction in the manner prescribed by the commissioner, before complying with the request as required by the Freedom of Information Act.  If the commissioner believes the requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subdivision (18) of subsection (b) of this section, the commissioner may withhold such record from such person when the record is delivered to the person's correctional institution or facility….

            13.  The respondent provided the records at issue to this Commission for an in camera inspection.  The in camera records consist of 313 pages, which pages have been designated by the Commission as IC 2003-061-1 through 313, inclusive, for identification purposes.

14.  It is found that the in camera records were compiled in connection with a murder and kidnapping investigation conducted by the respondent’s department into the death of a female in 1992.  After a jury trial the complainant was found guilty of murder, pursuant to §53a-54a, G.S., and two counts of kidnapping in the first degree, pursuant to §53a-92(a)(2)(B), G.S.  State of Connecticut v. Anthony Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 135 (1977).  The complainant was sentenced to a term of 96 years incarceration.  State v. Sinchak, CR 92207969, October 25, 1996, Murray, J.  It is found that the complainant is currently serving such sentence. 

 

15.  It is found that the in camera records consist of an incident and offense report, supplemental reports, signed witness statements, inventory of property seized, evidence listings, evidence examination reports, evidence receipt listing, booking form, Forensic Science Lab Preliminary Report and Reconstruction Report, listing of items submitted to the Forensic Lab and Results of Examination, and Affidavit and Application Search and Seizure Warrants.

            16.  It is found that the following in camera records constitute signed statements of witnesses: IC #2003-061-11 through 24; 87 through 98; 100, 107 through 127 and 306 through 313.

            17.  It is therefore, concluded that IC #2003-061-11 through 24, 87 through 98, 100, 107 through 127, and 306 through 313 are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

            18.  It is also found that certain portions of IC #2003-061-11 through 24, 87 through 98, 100, 107 through 127, and 306 through 313 would disclose 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., and therefore such portions are also exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S.

            19.   However, it is also concluded that the respondent failed to prove that IC #2003-061-11 through 24, 87 through 98, 100, 107 through 127, and 306 through 313 would divulge investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S., and therefore such records are not exempt pursuant to  §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S.  

            20.   It is also found that the following portions of the in camera records would divulge 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:

IC #2003-061-2, 3, 4, 5 (lines 1, 2 and 18), 6 (lines 1, 11, 14, and 17), 7 (lines 1, 25 and 26), 8 (line 1), 9 (lines 1 and 18), 25 (lines 1 and 10), 26 (line 21), 27 (line 1), 28 (line 1), 29 (line 1), 30 (line 1), 31 (line 1), 32 (line 1), 33 (line 1), 36 (lines 1, 9, and 16), 38 (lines 1, 7 and 9), 39 (line 1), 41 (line 1), 42 (lines 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 19 and 23), 43, 44 through 47, 48 (line 1), 49 (line 1), 50 (line 1), 51 (lines 1, 12, 13 and 14), 52 (lines 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 23), 53 (lines 7, 9 and 15), 54 (lines 1, 7 through 20), 55 (line 1), 56 through 59, 60 (lines 4, 11, 12 and 15), 61 (the name, address and telephone number of “complainant/ owner” and description of property), 62 (line 1), 66, 67, 74 (line 1), 75 (line 1), 79 (line 1), 80 (lines 1 and 4), 81 (lines 1, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16), 99, 102 (paragraph 6), 232 (line 1), 233 (lines 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15), 234 (lines 1, 4, 6, 14 and 15), 243 (paragraph 2), 252 (paragraph 2), 266 (paragraph 2), 273 (paragraphs 2 and 3), 282 (paragraphs 2 and 3), 286 (lines 13 through 16), 291 (paragraph 2), 292 (paragraphs 11 and 12), 294 (line 2), 298 (paragraphs 2 and 3), 301 (paragraph 11).

            21.  It is therefore concluded that the portions of the in camera records described in paragraph 20, above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S., and the remaining portions are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A), G.S.  

            22.  It is further concluded that the remaining portions of the records described in paragraph 20, above, are not signed statements of witnesses, within the meaning of  §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

            23.   It is also concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the remaining portions of the records described in paragraph 20, above, disclose investigatory techniques, within the meaning of  §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S. 

            24.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the following records would divulge 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, or signed statements of witnesses or investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public, within the meaning of  §1-210(b)(3)(A), (B), and (D), G.S.:

IC #2003-061-1, 5 (disclose all except lines 1, 2 and 18), 6 (disclose all except lines 1, 11, 14, and 17), 7 (disclose all except lines 1, 25 and 26), 8 (disclose all except line 1) 9 (disclose all except lines 1 and 18), 10, 25 (disclose all except lines 1, 10), 26 (disclose all except line 21), 27 (disclose all except line 1), 28 (disclose all except line 1), 29 (disclose all except line 1), 30 (disclose all except line 1), 31 (disclose all except line 1), 32 (disclose all except line 1), 33 (disclose all except line 1), 34, 35, 36 (disclose all except lines 1, 9 and 16), 37, 38 (disclose all except lines 1, 7 and 9), 39 (disclose all except line 1), 40, 41 (disclose all except line 1), 42 (disclose all except lines 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 19 and 23), 48 (disclose all except line 1), 49 (disclose all except line 1), 50 (disclose all except line 1), 51 (disclose all except lines 1, 12, 13 and 14), 52 (disclose all except lines 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 23), 53 (disclose all except lines 7, 8, 9 and 15), 54 ( disclose all except lines 1, and 7 through 20), 55 (disclose all except line 1), 60 (disclose all except lines 4, 11, 12 and 15), 61 (disclose all except name, address and telephone number of “complainant/ owner” and description of property), 62 (disclose all except line 1), 63 through 65, 68 through 73, 74 (disclose all except line 1), 75 (disclose all except line 1), 76 through 78, 79 (disclose all except line 1) , 80 (disclose all except lines 1 and 4), 81 (disclose all except lines 1, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16), 82 through 86, 99, 101, 102 (disclose all except paragraph 6), 103 through 106, 128 through 231, 232 (disclose all except line 1), 233 (disclose all except lines 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15),  234 (lines 1, 4, 6, 14 and 15), 235 through  242, 243 (disclose all except paragraph 2), 244, 245 through 250, 252 (disclose all except paragraph 2), 253 through 265, 266 (disclose all except paragraph 2), 267 through 272, 273 (disclose all except paragraphs 2 and 3), 274  through 281, 282 (disclose all except paragraphs 2 and 3), 283 through 285, 286 (disclose all except lines 13 through 16), 287 through 290, 291 (disclose all except paragraph 2), 292 (disclose all except paragraphs 11 and 12), 293, 294 (disclose all except line 2), 295 through 297, 298 (disclose all except paragraphs 2 and 3), 299 through 300,  301 (disclose all except paragraph 11), 302 through 305. [2]        

25.  It is therefore concluded that the records described in paragraph 24, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A), (B), and (D), G.S.

 

26.  With respect to the claim of exemption pursuant to §§1-210(b)(18) and 1-210(c), G.S., it is found that the language of  §1-210(c), G.S., obligated the respondent to contact the DOC “before complying with the request.”  Here, the respondent never complied with the request and therefore, there was no need for the DOC to “withhold” records “delivered to the person's correctional institution or facility” within the meaning of §1-210(c), G.S.   Therefore, it is concluded that §§1-210(b)(18) and 1-210(c), G.S., are not applicable in this case.  However, even if §§1-210(b)(18) and 1-210(c), G.S., were applicable in this case, it is concluded that the respondent and the DOC failed to prove that the DOC commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 24, above, may result in a safety risk within the meaning of §1-210(b)(18), G.S. 

 

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

 

1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the records described in paragraph 24, of the findings, above.

 

            2.  The respondent shall forthwith conduct a diligent search of the records to determine whether or not there are other records within the context of this decision which should be provided, and to provide copies of such records, and to provide to the complainant a list of any records which it claims are exempt, and to provide the basis of such claimed exemption on such records. 

                                             

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of February 4, 2004.

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Anthony J. Sinchak

#64249

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT  06410                                                                          Docket #FIC 2003-061

 

Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury

c/o Dan Shaban, Esq.

Office of Corporation Counsel

City of Waterbury

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT  06702

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-061/FD/mes/02/04/2004