FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 7, 2004, at which time the complainants 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 July 15, 2003, to the respondent, the complainants requested access to listen to any and all police radio transmissions and telephone calls to police dispatch concerning the July 14, 2003 bank robbery of a certain bank in Middletown, Connecticut.  The complainants limited their request to radio transmissions and telephone calls made between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on that date.

 

3.      By letter dated July 15, 2003, the complainants were informed that their request was denied because, pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., the requested records were likely to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and disclosure of the records would be prejudicial to that action due to their evidentiary value in the on-going criminal investigation.

 

4.      By letter dated and filed on July 28, 2003, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their request.

 

5.      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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 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. 

 

6.      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 . . . .”

 

7.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondent claimed that the requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(C) and (D), G.S. 

 

8.      Section 1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the 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 . . . information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action . . . .

 

9.      It is found that the requested records consists of at least one tape recording of a 911 call made to the Middletown Police Department reporting a bomb threat in one, possibly two, areas in the city of Middletown.

 

10.  It is found that the threat described in paragraph 9, above, was false and it is believed to have been made in an effort to divert the attention of law enforcement authorities from the bank robbery, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

11.  It is further found that making or reporting a false bomb threat constitutes a criminal act under §53a-180, G.S., and that the Connecticut State Attorney’s Office will prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the bomb threat described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above.

 

12.  It is found that because the requested records constitute the actual crime, they also constitute the respondent’s best evidence to proving that a criminal act under §53a-180, G.S., had been committed. 

 

13.  It is also found that the 911 call and the bank robbery are still under investigation by the Middletown Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

14.  It is further found that the tape of the 911 call is being analyzed to glean any information that would assist the law enforcement authorities in apprehending the perpetrators.

 

15.  It is found, therefore, that the requested records are records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

16.  Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent, and others in the police department, may have disclosed information regarding the requested records, it is also found that disclosure of the actual records would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.

 

17.  It is further found that the respondent determined that disclosure of the requested records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action.

 

18.  It is concluded, therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the requested records are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., and the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainants’ request. 

 

19.  Based upon the conclusion in paragraph 18, above, it is unnecessary, and the Commission declines, to address the remaining exemption claimed by the respondent.

 

 

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 March 10, 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:

 

Alaine Griffin and

The Hartford Courant

373 East Main Street

Middletown, CT  06457

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of Middletown

c/o Trina A. Solecki, Esq. and

Adrienne R. DeLucca, Esq.

245 deKoven Drive P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT  06457-1300

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-268/FD/abg/03/11/2004