FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Sol Maldonado Torres, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2005-553 | ||
|
Chief, Police Department, City of New London, |
|||
| Respondent | May 10, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 31, 2006, 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 by letter dated October 14, 2005, the complainant, through her attorney, made a request to the respondent for a copy of the police investigation files of two criminal complaints filed by the complainant against a Gilberto Torres Gonzalez (hereinafter “investigation files”).
3. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant’s request claiming that the investigation files was considered uncorroborated and would be subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S.
4. By letter dated November 14, 2005 and filed on November 18, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her 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 . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
6. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any 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 the investigation files and such files are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the investigation files contain uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., and are subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S. In support of its argument, the respondent claimed that the State’s Attorney’s decision not to prosecute and to close the criminal investigative files is evidence that the allegations contained in such files are uncorroborated.
9. Section 1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of:
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 . . . uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216 . . . .
10. Section 1-216, G.S., provides:
Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records. If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records.
11. It is found that upon the conclusion of the investigations, described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent obtained, by letter dated October 13, 2005, the opinion of the State's Attorneys Office regarding criminal prosecution, which office determined that the criminal investigation should be closed and that “it would be extremely difficult for the State to sustain its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should an arrest be effected in this case . . . based upon a review of the entire file including the actions of all individuals involved in relation to events as they transpired.”[sic]
12. The respondent submitted the investigation files to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which files have been identified as in-camera record #s 2005-553-001 through 2005-553-111.
13. In contested case Docket #FIC 94-219, Rachel Gottlieb and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, (hereinafter "FIC 94-219") the Commission found that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1990), defines "corroborate" as "to strengthen, to add weight or credibility to a thing by additional and confirming facts or evidence." Ballentines Law Dictionary, Third Edition (1969) defines corroborate as "to state facts tending to produce confidence in the truth of a statement made by another." Funk & Wagnall New Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1946) defines corroborate as "to give increased support to; make more sure or evident."
14. In FIC 94-219, the Commission found that "the reports contain similar accounts relayed to the respondent by different interviewees concerning the allegations under investigation". The Commission went on to find that "the requested reports contain allegations which were corroborated."
15. In this case, as in FIC 94-219, it is found that the in-camera records contain similar accounts of incidents related to the respondent by different individuals and information that tends to strengthen, add weight and support allegations made by the complainant.
16. It is found that the in-camera records do not contain uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.
17. Consequently, it is found that disclosure of the in-camera records would not result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.
18. It is therefore concluded that the in-camera records are not permissibly exempt from disclosure under §§1-210(b)(3)(G) and 1-216, G.S., and further that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request.
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 a copy of the investigation files described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, free of charge.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 2006.
________________________________
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 New London
c/o Brian K. Estep, Esq.
Conway & Londregan
PO Box 1351
38 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
Gilberto Torres Gonzalez
c/o W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., Esq.
409 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2005-553FD/paj/5/16/2006