FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

          

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 6, 2006, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   Following the hearing, the respondent provided an unredacted copy of one month of the records described in paragraph 9 of the findings, below.

 

            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 of complaint filed February 24, 2006, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying their request to inspect records concerning the hours of operation of, and citations issued from, the Greenwich weigh station.

 

            3.  It is found that the complainants are advocates for traffic safety, especially that of trucks and truck drivers.

 

            4.  It is found that on June 20, 2003 the Auditors of Public Accounts issued a “Performance Audit Overweight/Oversize Commercial Vehicles” (the “Audit”).

 

5.  It is found that the Audit observed that: while weigh stations are considered “open” during specific shifts throughout a scheduled period, there are often times during those shifts when commercial vehicles will not be directed to stop at the stations, due to traffic, weather or staffing concerns; that there are no logs or other records to document the times that “open” weigh stations are actually operating or temporarily closed; that there is not a consistent system in place to report weigh station statistics regarding the number of vehicles weighed and infractions issued; that data is often missing or approximated.  The Audit suggested that the Department of Public Safety immediately establish a uniform reporting system for scale operations, using daily activity sheets and ensuring that they were completely filled out.

 

6.  It is found that the complainants began requesting information from the respondent concerning traffic safety in May of 2004, seeking to determine whether the Department of Public Safety had followed the Audit’s recommendations for improved record keeping.

 

7.  It is found that on February 2, 2006 the complainants orally requested state police records detailing the hours of operation at the Greenwich weigh station for the last quarter of 2005.  The complainants also requested the record of citations that were issued during those periods, whether for weight, lights, driver log, suspensions, and so forth. 

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent orally denied the complainants’ February 2, 2006 request on that same day.   

 

9.  It is found that the respondent on April 4, 2006 provided to the complainants a heavily redacted copy of a document entitled “Traffic Services Unit – Statewide Operations”  (the “Schedule”) for the months December of 2005 and January and February of 2006.

 

10.  It is found that the Schedule is a daily schedule that shows which of various traffic facilities were staffed on each day, which “team” staffed the facility, and which shifts were staffed.

 

11.  It is found that the respondent also on April 4, 2006 provided to the complainants an unredacted copy of a document entitled “Connecticut Uniform Truck Weigh and Inspection Report” (the “Truck Report”) for December of 2005 and January and February of 2006.

 

12.  It is found that the Truck Report gives the number of tickets and charges issued for trucks statewide, broken down by categories such as “overweight” and “equipment violation;” and subcategories such as “axle,” “gross weight,” “brakes,” “tires,” and so forth.

 

13.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

            14.  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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

            15.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

16.  With respect to the complainants’ request for the record of citations that were issued from the Greenwich weigh station, it is found that the Truck Report does not provide information by facility. 

 

17.  It is further found that citations are reported by and recorded according to the trooper who issued them, not by the facility at which they were issued.

 

18.  It is found that the respondent maintains payroll, attendance and scheduling records that show where troopers were assigned on particular days, and that by comparing such records with records of citations it might be possible to generate a list indicating which citations correspond to the Greenwich weigh station.

 

19.  It is found, however, that the respondent provided the only record it has that lists citations issued against trucks, and that comparing the records identified in paragraph 18 of the findings above, with the Truck Report or other records in order to determine which citations were issued at the Greenwich weigh station would require research and the creation of records, which duties are not required by the FOI Act.  The Commission notes that the complainants are free to request additional records in order to conduct their own research.

 

20.  With respect to the complainants’ request for records detailing the hours of operation at the Greenwich weigh station, it is found that the Schedule described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the findings, above, is partially responsive to the complainants’ request.

 

21.  Specifically, it is found that all data has been redacted from the copies of the Schedule provided to the complainants, except for the word “Greenwich.”

 

22.  It is found that each occurrence of the word “Greenwich” in the copies provided to the complainants indicates that the Greenwich weigh station was open for one eight-hour shift on an identified day.

 

23.  It is found that the redacted Schedule does not show which of three shifts the Greenwich weigh station was open, and therefore does not show the “hours of operations” as requested by the complainants.

 

24.  The respondent contends that the schedule of operating hours at the Greenwich weigh station is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S., which provides that disclosure is not required 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 …  (D) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public ….

 

            25.  Specifically, the respondent contends that the schedule of the Greenwich weigh station is deliberately made unpredictable in order to aid enforcement, and that if truckers knew the schedule, they would be able to avoid the station during its operating hours.

 

26.  The complainants contend that the requested records do not contain “investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public,” but are simply records of the operation of a public facility.

 

27.  In this regard, the Commission notes that §1-213(a), G.S., provides:

 

The Freedom of Information Act shall be: (1)  Construed as requiring each public agency to open its records concerning the administration of such agency to public inspection ….

 

28.  For a variety of reasons, the Commission concludes that the respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S.  

 

            29.  First, contrary to the respondent’s assertion, it is concluded that a schedule of hours is not an “investigatory technique” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S.  See Docket No. CV 97-056712, Kenneth Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety et al. v. FOIC et al., Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford/New  Britain at Hartford, Memorandum of Decision dated January 15, 1998 (McWeeny, J.) (holding that a state trooper shift schedule does not of itself reveal an investigatory technique).

 

30.  Second, even if the unpredictable scheduling of operating hours could be considered an investigatory technique, it is found that it is a technique well known to the public generally, and to truckers specifically.

 

31.  Third, it is found that the hours that the weigh station is open are readily apparent to the public.  Indeed, the respondent concedes that truckers observe when the stations are open, and communicate such information with each other via citizen’s band radio.

 

            32.  It is therefore found that both the technique of unpredictable scheduling, and the hours that the station is actually open, are known to the public within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S.      

 

33.  Finally, it is found that the respondent offered no evidence whatsoever that the requested records of operation were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime. 

 

34.  Indeed, the Commission notes that weight restrictions for vehicles, trailers or other objects, highway weighing procedures, penalties for overweight violations, and fines for failure to comply, are governed by §14-267a, G.S.

 

35.  The Appellate Court has concluded that the motor vehicle violations enumerated under §14-267a, G.S., are not crimes.  State v. Goff, 41 Conn. App. 454 (1996).

 

36.  It is therefore concluded that the requested records were not compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime.

 

            37.  It is therefore further concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-213(a), G.S., when he failed to provide the record of the operating hours of the Greenwich weigh station, including the specific shifts that the station is open.

 

            38.  The respondent contends that the remaining redacted information on the Schedule, which shows the particular commercial vehicle enforcement teams of troopers and weight and safety inspectors that were assigned to particular weigh stations and other facilities, was not specifically requested by the complainants and therefore is not at issue in this case.

 

39.  It is found, however, that the respondent himself, by the act of redacting that information from a presumptively public record, put at issue whether that portion of the record is exempt from disclosure. 

 

40.  It is also found that the redacted information on the Schedule is generally within the categories of information sought by the complainants.  It is further found that the respondent understood that the complainants, in attempting to verify the hours of operation of the weigh station and the respondent’s documentation concerning the station, were interested in obtaining any pertinent information.  See Perkins v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 158, 167 (1993):

 

As a practical matter, the FOIA is used repeatedly by members of the public who are unschooled in technical, legalistic language distinctions. It would be unreasonable to deny a member of the public access to the FOIA simply because of arguable imperfections in the form in which a request for public records is couched.

 

41.  It is concluded that the remaining information on the schedule is also not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(D), G.S., for the reasons described in paragraphs 27 through 36 of the findings, above.

 

            42.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-213(a), G.S., when he failed to provide unredacted copies of the Schedule.

 

 

            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 complainants with unredacted copies of the Schedule for December of 2005, and January and February of 2006. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 12, 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:

 

Jill Kelly, Carol Leighton, and

The Connecticut Citizens

Transportation Lobby

132 Sturges Road

Fairfield, CT 06824 

 

Commissioner,

State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Traffic Services Division

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-081FD/paj/7/12/2006