FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 19, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies, within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, on April 18, April 20, May 2 and June 8, 2011, the complainant requested from the respondents a copy of “any/all information” relating to a September 2010 incident involving the complainant in which she was accused of reckless driving and breach of peace.  It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with some of the records responsive to such request, but withheld other responsive records.

 

3.  By letter of complaint, dated June 21, 2011 and filed June 23, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by failing to comply with the request for records described in paragraph 2, above.  In her complaint, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be assessed against the respondents.

 

4.  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.

 

5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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

 

            6.   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.”

 

7.    It is found that the respondents maintain a case file related to the September 3 incident, described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found that such file contains the following records:  an incident report, information with unsigned application for arrest warrant attached[1], a statement by the witness to the September 3 incident, and a statement by the chief state’s attorney regarding his decision not to prosecute.  It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the incident report and information/arrest warrant application, but declined to provide her with a copy of the statements of the witness and the chief state’s attorney.

 

8.  It is found that the investigation of the September 3 incident has been concluded and that the case file, described in paragraph 7, above, is closed.  The respondents claim that the entirety of the case file related to the September 3 incident is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to §1-210(b)(3), G.S., because it contains uncorroborated allegations of criminal activity.   

 

9.  Section 1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides, in relevant part, that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure 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 . . . uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216 . . . .

 

10.  In turn, §1-216, G.S., provides:

 

Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records.  If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records.

 

11.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 7, above, are records of a law enforcement agency, not otherwise available to the public, which were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, and which contain uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S.  It is further found that disclosure of such records would not be in the public interest.

 

12.  The Commission has consistently concluded that the entirety of the record of an investigation of uncorroborated allegations of criminal activity is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.  See, e.g., Docket # 2009-782, O’Meara v. Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (all records including incident report and witness statements exempt under §1-210(b)(3), G.S.); Docket #FIC2006-049, Otto v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Greenwich (all 48 pages of police report exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2005-031, Bosco v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Wethersfield (all 22 pages of investigation report comprised of incident report; supplemental reports; statements of the complainant, the suspect and another individual; case closure report exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2003-462, Kosinski v. Department of Public Safety (all 25 pages of investigation report exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2003-218, Chalecki v. Department of Public Safety (entirety of investigation report exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2000-291, Damato v. Records Supervisor, Police Department, Town of Glastonbury (all four pages of investigation report exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 1999-493, Peruta v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Wethersfield et al. (all three pages of investigation exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 1999-296, Hartford Courant et al. v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington et al. (all 317 pages of investigation report exempt under §1-210(b)(3)(B) and (G), G.S.).

 

13.  The respondent chief testified that, although he could permissibly withhold the entire file from the complainant, he felt the complainant should be able to have a copy of the incident report and the arrest warrant application, as she was the subject of the complaint against her.  However, the chief further testified that he believed it would be in the best interest of all involved if the statements of the witness and the chief state’s attorney were withheld.

 

14.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding the statements of the witness and the chief state’s attorney from the complainant.

 

15.  Based upon the foregoing conclusion, the Commission need not consider the complainant’s request for civil penalties against the respondents.

 

 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 October 26, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Ann Cleary

2 Eagle Rock Hill Road

Bethel, CT  06801

 

Jeffrey Finch, Chief, Police Department, Town of Bethel;

Robert Cedargren, Captain, Police Department, Town of Bethel;

Officer Michael Conroy, Police Department, Town of Bethel;

Officer Michael Kaluta, Police Department, Town of Bethel;

Officer James Wright, Police Department, Town of Bethel;

and Police Department, Town of Bethel

c/o Martin J. Lawlor, Jr., Esq.

99 Greenwood Avenue

Bethel, CT  06801

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2011-319/FD/cac/10/26/2011