FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 11, 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.  It is found that, by letter dated April 23, 2007, the complainants 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 also requested a waiver or reduction of fees.

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated May 2, 2007, the respondent denied the request described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

4.  By letter of complaint dated and filed May 4, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying their April 23, 2007 request for public records.   At the hearing in this matter, the complainants informed the Commission that they do not object to the redaction of social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical histories, and so much of the dates of birth which reveal the day of the month.  Accordingly, such portions of the records are no longer at issue herein. 

 

5.  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.

 

6.  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. 

 

7.  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.”

 

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

 

9.  It is found that, by letter dated July 30, 2007, the respondent informed the complainants that he would make approved applications available, with the following redactions: name, address, social security number; date of birth; motor vehicle operator’s license number; and medical history.  The respondent also contended that the applications would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and that, after such review, other identifying information, such as telephone numbers and employment histories, might also be redacted.  The respondent also informed the complainants that, with respect to denied applications; the respondent would only provide the complainants with the names and addresses of such applicants.  The respondent contended therein that such redactions are consistent with the Commission’s final decision in Docket #FIC 2002-528; Nazarian v. First Selectman, Town of Griswold (Aug. 13, 2003), and with §29-28(d), G.S.  The respondent also denied the request for fee waiver or reduction.

 

10.  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.” 

 

11.  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. 

 

12.  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.

 

13.  It is found that persons issued a permit or a temporary state permit to carry pistols and revolvers by the respondent had to first complete Form DPS-799-C (“the application”).  It is found that when an application is approved, it is stamped with the word(s) approved and/or issued and that such application thereby becomes a “permit” within the meaning of §29-28(d), G.S.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain  separate documents that constitute permits to carry a pistol or revolver once the applications have been approved. 

 

            14.  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.

 

15.  It is also concluded that the issue of whether §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from disclosure the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits is not a question of first impression for the Commission.  In Docket #1998-327; Sherman v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (Aug. 25, 1999), 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), G.S.  The Commission also concluded that the names and addresses of applicants who had pending appeals of denials of their pistol permit applications were also exempt from disclosure, because disclosure might reveal the names and addresses of persons who might be successful in their appeals and ultimately might be issued a permit. 

 

16.  It is concluded that §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure the names and addresses of: persons whose applications are pending; persons whose applications have been approved; persons whose applications were initially denied but later approved on appeal; and persons whose applications were denied but who have pending appeals of such denials.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants. 

 

17.  The respondent also contends that the Commission in Nazarian approved the redaction of full dates of birth.  In its recent final decision Docket #FIC 2007-154; MariAn Gail Brown and The Connecticut Post v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Stratford (Feb. 27, 2008) (hereinafter “Docket#FIC2007-154”), a matter concerning a request identical to the one herein, the Commission concluded that the respondent in such matter did not violate the FOI Act by withholding dates of birth from the complainants.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent herein did not violate the FOI Act by withholding dates of birth from the complainants. 

 

18.  The respondent also contends that employment histories on the applications may be exempt.  In Docket#FIC2007-154, the Commission concluded that insofar as employment histories that actually contain the name of a self-employed applicant, such records may be redacted.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent herein did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants, except with respect to denied applications. 

 

19.  With respect to remaining employment histories, it is found that the respondent failed to present evidence, and therefore failed to prove, that such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to provide such records to the complainants.

 

20. The Commission takes administrative/judicial notice that it is common knowledge that a telephone number can lead to the identification of a name and an address, and is therefore excluded by §29-28(d), G.S.

 

21. With respect to the applications that were denied, and for which the respondent agrees to provide names and addresses, it is concluded that the respondent violated the FOI Act by withholding from the complainants all other information on such applications, except social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical histories, and birth dates.  

 

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

 

23.  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.”

 

24.  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.

 

25.  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.  Upon prepayment to the respondent of the statutory copying fees, the respondent shall promptly provide copies of the requested records to the complainants. 

 

2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may redact the names and addresses of: persons whose applications are pending; persons whose applications have been approved; persons whose applications were initially denied but later approved on appeal; and persons whose applications were denied but who have pending appeals of such denials.  Additionally, with respect to such persons, the respondent may redact employment histories that name such persons. 

 

3.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may also redact social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical histories, and birth dates, with respect to all applicants.

 

4.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the telephone numbers of persons whose applications are approved or pending. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 26, 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 Easton

c/o Ira W. Bloom, Esq.

Wake, See, Dimes, Bryniczka, Day & Bloom

27 Imperial Avenue

Westport, CT 06880

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-267FD/paj/3/31/2008