FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Scott Cancel,  
  Complainant  
  against    Docket #FIC 2005-530

Chief, Police Department, Town

of Southington,

 
  Respondent September 27, 2006
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 27, 2006, 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 written request dated October 5, 2005, the complainant requested that the Southington Police Department provide him with a copy of the following records:

 

i)                    all statements from Gilberto DelSado, a.k.a. Tito, DOB 4-23-71, case # 89-24, 402; and

ii)                   all statements from John Grzeszczyk, DOB 5-19-67, case # 89-24, 402

 

(hereinafter “requested records”).[2]

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated October 24, 2005 the respondent, through counsel, denied the October 5, 2005 request, claiming that the requested records are exempt “signed statements of witnesses”, pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

 

4.  Thereafter, by letter of complaint dated October 27, 2005 and filed on November 2, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the requested records.

 

5.  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…or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  

6.  It is found that the respondent maintains the requested records, and such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

7.  However, §1-210(b)(3), G.S., permits the nondisclosure 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 … (B) signed statements of witnesses….

 

8.  Following the close of the hearing in this matter, the respondent submitted a copy of the requested records to the Commission for an in camera inspection.  The in camera records have been marked as IC 2005-530, pages 1 through 21, for identification purposes.[3]

 

9.  It is found that IC 2005-530, pages 1 through 21, constitute 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.  It is also found that such records are signed statements of witnesses, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. 

 

10.  Consequently, it is concluded that IC 2005-530, pages 1 through 21 are permissively exempt from disclosure, and therefore, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint, when he denied 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.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 27, 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:

 

Scott Cancel, #207126

MacDougall Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Chief, Police Department, Town

of Southington

c/o Mark Sciota, Esq.

PO Box 610

75 Main Street

Southington, CT 06489

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-530FD/paj/10/3/2006

 

                                                                                               



[1] The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, (2003,) Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford,  Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).   

 

[2] At the hearing in this matter, the complainant indicated that he had also sent a written request dated October 30, 2005, to the Southington Police Department requesting statements from Salvatore Zampi, DOB 10/04//63, and Jeffrey Stenner, both concerning case # 89-24, 402.  However, the respondent stated that he had never received the October 30, 2005 request, and further, that had he received such a request he would have denied it because his position with respect to all such statements is that they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S.

[3] The in camera records include statements from Salvatore Zampi and Jeffrey Stenner.  See Footnote 2.