FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 30, 2007, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

            On November 14, 2007, the Commission issued its final decision (“Final Decision”), which the respondents appealed to the Superior Court on December 31, 2007.

 

            After a hearing on the Commission’s motion, the Court, Cohn, J., remanded the case to the Commission for further evidentiary proceedings and/or clarification and articulation of the Final Decision in light of the complainants’ May 29, 2008 notice to the Commission that they did not seek disclosure of certain information ordered disclosed by the Final Decision.  The court retained jurisdiction over the appeal.

 

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 March 19, 2007 (the March 19 letter), the complainants requested access to:

 

a.       “[a] list of the names and addresses of 41 convicted sex offenders, whose names are currently known only to law enforcement personnel under [§]54-255, [G.S.]”

 

Alternatively, if such request was denied, the complainants requested, in their March 19 letter:

 

b.      “…the court orders restricting those 41 sex offenders to the non-public sex offender registry, and any public information the Department has regarding the offenders’ convictions.”

 

3.  By letter dated March 20, 2007, the respondent informed the complainants that their request for information had been referred to it “for review and response” and that the complainants would “be notified as soon as possible of the results of [the] review as well as any fees that may be due.”

 

4.  It is found that, on May 7, 2007, the complainants contacted the respondent by telephone to inquire as to the status of their request.  It is also found that the respondent, on May 7, 2007, replied, via email, that “the matter is still under review by this office.”

 

5.  It is found that, on May 8, 2007, the complainants, via email, inquired further into the status of their request, specifically asking the respondent when they could expect a response.  It is found that the respondent replied, via email, that “[w]e continue to process your request and will advise you as soon as possible of the results of our review.”

 

            6.  By letter dated May 14, 2007 and filed May 16, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide them with the records described in paragraphs 2.a or 2.b, above. 

 

7.  By letter dated May 25, 2007 (the May 25 letter), the respondent provided 92 pages of records to the complainants.  The May 25 letter explained that “[e]ach page has been partially redacted pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes [§] 54-255” and that “one (1) of the pages has been partially redacted pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 17a-101k.”

 

8.  It is found that the list of names and addresses requested by the complainants and described in paragraph 2.a, above, was not included in the 92 pages of records provided to the complainants.

 

9.  It is found that, with respect to the request described in paragraph 2.a, above, the respondent did not maintain a list of the 41 convicted sex offenders at issue in this matter.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent legal affairs office did not violate the FOI Act in failing to provide the list described in paragraph 2.a, above, to the complainants. 

 

10.  With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, at the hearing in this matter, the complainants claimed that the redactions made in each of the 92 pages were over-inclusive, and by such redactions, the respondent improperly withheld information from them. 

 

11.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

“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 … whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, taped-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

12.   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.  [Emphasis added].  

 

13.  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.” 

 

14.  It is found that the records at issue, described in paragraph 7, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

15.  Section 54-255, G.S., cited by the respondent, is a provision of Connecticut’s version of “Megan’s Law”, codified at §§54-250 through 54-261, G.S.  Megan’s Law, in essence, requires an individual convicted (or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect) of certain criminal offenses, most of them sexual in nature, to register with the Department of Public Safety (DPS), upon their release into the community. 

 

16.  Under §54-257, G.S., DPS is required to “establish and maintain” a sex offender registry.  Also, “upon receipt of registration information,” DPS must “enter the information into the registry….”  Id.

 

            17.  “Registry” is defined as “a central record system in this state…that receives, maintains and disseminates information on persons convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of criminal offenses against victims who are minors, nonviolent offenses, sexually violent offenses and felonies found by the sentencing court to have been committed for a sexual purpose.”  §54-250(9), G.S.

18.  Section 54-258(a)(1), G.S., provides that “the registry maintained by [DPS] shall be a public record and shall be accessible to the public during normal business hours,” and further, that “[DPS] shall make registry information available to the public through the Internet.”   In addition, that statute provides that “[e]ach local police department and each state police troop shall keep a record of all registration information transmitted to it by [DPS], and shall make such information accessible to the public during normal business hours.”

 

19.  Notwithstanding the public access provisions of Megan’s Law, §54-258(a)(4), G.S., provides that “registration information the dissemination of which has been restricted by court order pursuant to section 54-255, and which is not otherwise subject to disclosure, shall not be a public record and shall be released only for law enforcement purposes until such restriction is removed by the court…”  [emphasis added].

 

20.  Section 54-255(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

Upon the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of any person for a violation of section 53a-70b[1], the court may order [DPS] to restrict the dissemination of the registration information to law enforcement purposes only and to not make such information available for public access, provided the court finds that dissemination of the registration information is not required for public safety and that publication of the registration information would be likely to reveal the identity of the victim within the community where the victim resides.  [Emphasis added].

 

            21.  Section 54-255(b), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

Upon the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of any person of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, a nonviolent sexual offense or a sexually violent offense, where the victim of such offense was, at the time of the offense under 18 years of age and related to such person…, the court may order [DPS] to restrict the dissemination of the registration information to law enforcement purposes only and to not make such information available for public access, provided the court finds that dissemination of the registration information is not required for public safety and that publication of the registration information would be likely to reveal the identity of the victim within the community where the victim resides.  [Emphasis added].

 

22.  Similarly, §54-255(c), G.S., provides that certain categories of offenders required to register with DPS “may petition the court to order [DPS] to restrict the dissemination of the registration information to law enforcement purposes only and to not make such information available for public access,” and that the court may grant such petition if it “finds that dissemination of the registration information is not required for public safety.”  [Emphasis added].

 

23.  It is found that, although the term “registration information” is not defined in §54-250, G.S., the registration provisions of Megan’s Law, §§54-251 through 54-254, G.S., list the information required to be provided by an individual registering with DPS, as follows:  “name, identifying factors, criminal history record and residence address….”[2]    In addition, under certain circumstances, “documentation of any treatment received for mental abnormality or personality disorder,” must also be provided.  §54-252, G.S.

 

24.  “Identifying factors” is defined in §54-250, G.S., as “fingerprints, a photographic image, and a description of any other identifying characteristics as may be required by the Commissioner of [DPS].”

 

25.  It is concluded that the purpose of Megan’s Law is to identify registered sex offenders to the general public and to law enforcement agencies by the use of the “registry.”

 

26.  It is concluded that the purpose of §54-255, G.S., is to prevent the general public, in certain instances, from using “registration information” to identify registrants where such identification would lead to the identification of the registrant’s victim.

 

27.  It is concluded that “registration information” within the meaning of §§54-255, G.S., 54-257, G.S., 54-258(a)(1), G.S., and 54-258(a)(4), G.S., means information about the registrant that would identify the registrant.  

 

28.  At the hearing in this matter, the hearing officer ordered the respondent to provide an unredacted copy of each of the 92 pages of records it deemed responsive to the request in paragraph 2.b, above, for an in camera inspection.  On September 10, 2007, the respondent provided such unredacted records to the Commission, and they are identified herein as IC2007-295-01 through IC2007-295-92.  Such records consist of various court records, containing the court orders restricting dissemination of registration information to law enforcement purposes only, for each of the 39 sex offenders at issue.[3]  

           

29.  It is found that, generally, the respondent claims that the following information contained in the in camera records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §54-255, G.S.: 

 

a.       name, address, date of birth, and date of conviction of sex offender

b.      town where offense occurred, and date of offense

c.       docket number

d.      name and location of court

e.       name of judge

f.       names of clerk, assistant clerk, and deputy clerk

g.      names of prosecuting and defense attorneys

h.      date of plea

i.        date of disposition

j.        date sentenced

k.      name and address of applicant on application to restrict dissemination of registration information, where the applicant is also the registered sex offender

l.        name and address of applicant on application to restrict dissemination of registration information, where the applicant is different from the registered sex offender.

 

30.  During the pendency of the appeal, by letters to the Commission dated May 29, 2008 and July 31, 2008, the complainants stated that of the items listed in paragraph 29, they sought disclosure only of the information listed in paragraphs 29.d through 29.g, above, i.e., the names of the judges who issued the orders restricting dissemination of “registration information”, the names and locations of the courts (regardless of where such location appears on the document), the names of the clerks, assistant clerks and deputy clerks, and the names of the prosecuting and defense attorneys.  The Commission takes administrative notice of such letters.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the Commission need not determine whether redaction of the information listed in paragraphs 29.a through 29.c, and 29.h through 29.l, violates the FOI Act.

 

31.  With respect to the limited information now at issue in this case, described in paragraphs 29.d through 29.g, above, it is found that such information is administrative  information contained in court records, and is not information about the registrant that would identify the registrant to the general public.  Moreover, it is found that the respondent failed to prove that the court records at issue are sealed at the court, or are otherwise unavailable for public inspection, or that the information at issue is not publicly known.   

 

32.  It is therefore concluded that the information described in paragraphs 29.d through 29.g, is not “registration information” within the meaning of §§54-255, G.S., 54-257, G.S., 54-258(a)(1), G.S., and 54-258(a)(4), G.S.

 

33.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., in redacting the information described in paragraph 29.d through 29.g, above, from the records described in paragraph 28, above.

 

            34.  The respondent also claims, with respect to page IC2007-295-83, that certain information contained in lines 41 and 42, of such record, is exempt pursuant to §17a-101k, G.S.

 

35.  Section 17a-101k, G.S. provides, in relevant part:

 

The Commission of Children and Families shall maintain a registry of the reports received pursuant to 17a-101a, to 17a-101d, inclusive and 17a-103….The information contained in the reports and any other information relative to child abuse, wherever located, shall be confidential subject to such statutes and regulations governing their use and access as shall conform to the requirements of federal law or regulations….

 

36.  After careful review of the in camera record, it is found that the information in lines 41 and 42 of page IC2007-295-83, is not a report or information relative to child abuse within the meaning of §17a-101k, G.S.  It is therefore concluded that the redacted information in lines 41 and 42 is not exempt from disclosure, and that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., in withholding such information from the complainants.

 

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

1.  Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the in camera records responsive to the request in paragraph 2.b, of the findings above, and described in paragraph 28 of the findings, above.  In complying with such order, the respondent may redact the information listed in paragraph 29.a through 29.c, and 29.h through 29.l only.

 

2.  Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the disclosure and promptness requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 22, 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:

 

Heather Nann Collins,

Alexander Wood, and the

Manchester Journal Inquirer

306 Progress Drive

PO Box 510

Manchester, CT 06045-0510

 

Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

c/o Lynn D. Wittenbrink, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-295FD on Remand/paj/10/27/2008