FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 20, 2007, 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 of complaint filed March 12, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying their January 12, 2007 request for public records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainants by letter dated January 12, 2007 requested copies of any and all pistol permit applications (also known as Form DPS-799-C) submitted between January 1, 1996 and January 15, 2007.  The complainants additionally requested that, if the permit applications did not indicate whether the permit was approved or denied, that the respondent provide copies of any and all correspondence to pistol permit applicants that would inform them whether their applications had been approved or denied.  The complainants also requested a waiver or reduction of fees.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent, by letter dated February 23, 2007, replied that copies of applications denied for issuance of a permit would be provided with the following information redacted: social security number; telephone number; date of birth; motor vehicle operator’s license number; medical history, and employment history.  The respondent additionally indicated that copies of correspondence to applicants denied for issuance of a permit would be provided, also with the above information redacted.

 

5.  It is further found that the respondent, by the same February 23, 2007 letter, indicated that he would provide copies of applications approved for issuance of a permit with the information described in paragraph 4, above, redacted, and also with the name and address of the applicant redacted.

 

6.  It is further found that the respondent, by the same February 23, 2007 letter, denied the complainants’ request for a waiver of fee; estimated the cost of providing the redacted copies to be $2,625, based on 50 cents per page; and required prepayment of that amount.  The respondent further indicated that, because manual search, review and redaction of the records would be required, he estimated that it would take approximately 36 weeks to comply with the request.

 

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.  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.”

 

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

 

11.  The respondent contends that the information he proposed to redact from the requested records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d), G.S.

 

12.  Section 29-28(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued … a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed

 

13.  The complainants contend that they are seeking information contained in pistol permit applications, not the pistol permits themselves, and that the information contained in the pistol permit applications is not exempt from disclosure by the plain language of §29-28(d), G.S.

 

14.  The complainants also contend that the Commission has previously decided that the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits are not exempt from disclosure, citing Nazarian v. First Selectman, Town of Griswold, docket #FIC 2002-528.

 

15.  In Nazarian the Commission did not address the applicability of §29-28(d), G.S.  Specifically, the Commission concluded in paragraph 13 of that decision that “in the absence of federal law or state statute that bars disclosure of the information contained in the requested records, such records are disclosable pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S.” 

 

16.  It is concluded that the respondent is not precluded from raising §29-28(d), G.S., in his defense, notwithstanding a different respondent’s previous failure to raise the defense in Nazarian.

 

17.  It is also concluded that the issue of whether §29-28(d), G.S., exempts the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits from disclosure is not a question of first impression for the Commission.  In  Sherman v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, docket #FIC 1998-327, the Commission concluded that disclosure of the names and addresses of applicants who appealed the denial of their pistol permit applications and subsequently were granted permits were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d).  The Commission also concluded that the names and addresses of applicants who had pending appeals of denials of their pistol permit applications, and whose appeals had not been decided, were also exempt from disclosure because disclosure might reveal the name and address of persons who might be successful in their appeals and ultimately might be issued a permit.

 

18.  It is therefore concluded, consistent with Sherman, that disclosing the name and address of an applicant for a pistol permit who was subsequently granted a pistol permit would be disclosing “the name and address of a person issued … a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver,” within the meaning of §29-28(d), G.S. 

 

19.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by declining to provide the names and addresses of pistol permit applicants who were subsequently granted permits.

 

20.  The complainants also contend that the redactions, in addition to names and addresses, described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, are excessive.

 

21.  The respondent contends that the additional redactions are necessary to protect the identity and privacy of the applicants.  The additional disputed redactions for denied applicants consist of: social security numbers, dates of birth, motor vehicle operator’s license numbers, and medical histories.  For individuals granted permits, the respondent additionally seeks to redact the individuals’ employment histories.

 

22.  The respondent also contends that the Commission in Nazarian approved the redaction of social security numbers, dates of birth, motor vehicle operators’ license numbers and medical histories. 

 

23.  The respondent additionally contends that, in addition to the redactions approved in Nazarian, it is necessary to redact employment history because disclosing that an individual was self-employed would also reveal the individual’s name.

 

24.  It is found that disclosing the words “self-employed” would not in itself disclose an individual’s name.  If a permit holder is actually named as the employer, then that name may be redacted, consistent with paragraph 18, above.

 

25.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent failed to prove that employment information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d), G.S.

 

26.  It is also concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by declining to provide social security numbers, dates of birth, motor vehicle operators’ license numbers, and medical histories.

 

27.  It is also concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a) and §1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide employment information contained in the requested records.

 

28.  The complainants also contend that the respondent’s estimate of the time necessary to comply with the request does not comport with the statutory requirement that the records be provided “promptly.”

 

29.  It is found that the respondent’s estimate of 36 weeks to provide the records is not credible, and is based on unrealistically slow methods to provide the records.

 

30.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a) and §1-212(a), G.S., by delaying access to the records and by unrealistically overestimating the time required to provide the records.

31.  Finally, the complainants contend that the respondent improperly denied their request for a fee waiver.

 

32.  Section 1-212(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that a public agency shall waive any copying fee “when, in its judgment, compliance with the applicant's request benefits the general welfare.”

 

33.  It is found that §1-212(d), G.S., vests the discretion to determine whether compliance with the complainant’s request benefits the general welfare with the respondent, and that the respondent did not abuse his discretion by declining to make such a determination.

 

34.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-212(d), G.S., by declining to waive copying fees for the respondent.

 

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

 

            1.  With the exception of the portion of the complainants’ request concerning employment history, and paragraphs 29 and 30 above, the complaint is dismissed.

 

            2.   The respondent shall promptly provide, free of charge, copies of the requested records to the complainant with the redactions indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, except that the respondent shall not redact information concerning employment, unless that information names the individual who was granted that permit.

 

            3.  The Commission strongly suggests that the respondent, in complying with the complainants' request, use the complainants’ experience and suggestions to redact the requested records in the most efficient manner possible, such as the use of a template. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 27, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

MariAn Gail Brown and

The Connecticut Post

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

           

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Stratford

c/o Bryan L. LeClerc, Esq.

Berchem, Moses and Devlin

75 Broad Street

Milford, CT 06460

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-154FD/paj/3/5/2008