FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 20, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   After the hearing, at the order of the hearing officer, the respondents submitted affidavits that were made after-filed exhibits.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., except for the respondent State’s Attorney, Judicial District of Windham, who is a public agency only with respect to her administrative functions, within the meaning of §1-201, G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed August 23, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for copies of public records.

 

            3.  It is found that, by letters dated August 4, 2005 to the respondents Commissioner of Public Safety and the Legal Affairs Division, the complainant requested copies of the following records regarding his criminal case:

 

a.                   The written police policy for law enforcement officers regarding sexual harassment, including sanctions for such an offense;

b.                  The written police policy regarding conduct unbecoming an officer, including sanctions for such an offense;

c.                   The written police policies regarding the treatment of persons already in custody and control of a law enforcement officer, including the sanctions for such an offense;

d.                  All six pages of the search and seizure warrant served on February 18, 2005 at 15 Courtney Lane, Dayville, Connecticut;

e.                   The names and badge numbers of any and all law enforcement officers who were in any way involved, including F.B.I agents, task force officers, and any and all state police troopers, whether or not they actually entered the dwelling;

f.                    All involved law enforcement officers’ personal information and work history;

g.                   All involved law enforcement officers’ letters of reprimand or reprimands;

h.                   All involved law enforcement officers’ suspension notices for the last seven years, if any;

i.                     Any and all referrals to substance abuse programs for the last seven years, if any;

j.                    Referrals for counseling programs for the last seven years, if any;

k.                  All cost and expenses concerning the task force, state police, F.B.I and all involved in the search and seizure warrant served on 15 Courtney Lane, Rogers, Connecticut served on February 18, 2005, including but not limited to pay vouchers, invoices, and so forth;

l.                     Any and all evidence and information used to attempt to convict the complainant in a court of law, including but not limited to surveillance photos, witness statements, under cover reports or statements, law enforcement officer reports, and the so-called long-standing complaints from the community, which law enforcement officers have claimed gave them probable cause for the search and seizure warrant that was served;

m.                 Any and all reports, log entries, phone logs, phone recordings and any and all information connected in any way to the serving of the warrant; and

n.                   Any and all documents, reports and complaints generated by any person living at 15 Courtney Lane, Rogers, Connecticut for the last seven years, including but not limited to 911 calls, routine dispatch calls, complaints made by persons who live at 15 Courtney Lane, Rogers, Connecticut, and any and all complaints that law enforcement officers did not respond to, or whether the complaint was properly answered, including but not limited to the response times before the complaint was actually answered, and all traffic stop information.

 

4.  It is found that the complainant, by letter also dated August 4, 2005, made essentially the same request to the respondent State’s Attorney, but omitting the items described in paragraph 3.a, 3.b and 3.c, above.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent Commissioner of Public Safety (the “Commissioner”), by letter dated August 12, 2005, acknowledged the complainant’s request and indicated that the respondents were reviewing what information would be disclosed.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent Commissioner offered some, but not all, of the requested records to the complainant on September 27, 2005, consisting of approximately 1,000 computer-generated pages, and 65 other pages, in response to paragraphs 3.a, 3.b., 3.d, and 3.n, above.

 

7.  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.

 

            8.  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. 

 

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

 

10.  The respondent State’s Attorney did not contend that any of the requested records did not pertain to her administrative functions, within the meaning of §1-201, G.S.

 

11.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents offered to provide the records requested in paragraphs 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d, 3.e, 3.f, 3.h, 3.k, 3.l, 3.m and 3.n, above, in exchange for the payment of the copying charges, which the complainant agreed to pay.  The hearing officer gave the complainant three weeks to review the documents for completeness and to request that the hearing be reopened on the issue of completeness if he believed the records were not complete.  No request to reopen the hearing was received by the hearing officer.

 

12.  Therefore, the only issues remaining for determination are whether the respondent provided the records described in paragraph 11, above, promptly; whether any records exist in response to paragraph 3.g, above; whether the records described in paragraphs 3.i and 3.j exist, and, if they do, whether they are exempt from disclosure.

 

13.  The complainant contends that the records described in paragraph 11, above, were not provided promptly.

 

14.  It is found that the respondents, after offering some records on September 27, 2005, continued to review the remaining records to determine whether disclosure would be prejudicial to the prosecution of the complainant’s criminal case, or to the prosecution of other individuals who had been arrested along with the complainant. 

 

15.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., 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 …  (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action ….

           

            16.  The respondent’s burden of proof under §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., requires an evidentiary showing that the records are in fact to be used in a prospective law enforcement action, and that the disclosure of the records would be prejudicial to such action.  Department of Public Safety v. FOIC, 51 Conn. App. 100, 104-105 (1998).          

 

17.  At the time of the hearing on this matter, none of the respondents argued against the disclosure of the requested records on the basis of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., or offered any evidence to prove that disclosure of the requested records would have been prejudicial at any time to a prospective law enforcement action.

 

18.  The respondents offered no evidence to explain the three-month delay in providing the records described in paragraph 11, above, other than generally to assert the pendency of criminal prosecutions against the complainant and others.

 

19.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that three months were required to review the records for claims of exemption under §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.

 

20.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the promptness requirement contained in §1-210(a), G.S.

 

21.  With respect to records described in paragraphs 3.g, 3.i, and 3.j, above, it is found that no such records exist.

 

22.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to provide such records.

 

 

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

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement contained in §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 9, 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:

 

Mitchell D. Poudrier

15 Courtney Lane

Dayville, CT 06241

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

c/o Neil Parille, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

Dawn Hellier, Legal Affairs Division,

State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

1111 Country Club Road

Middletown, CT 06457

 

Patricia Froelich, State’s Attorney,

State of Connecticut,

Judicial District of Windham

c/o Judith Rossi, Esq.

Office of the Chief State’s Attorney

300 Corporate Place

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

 

 

__________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-428FD/paj/8/16/2006