FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 2011, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 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, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2011-179; Carnell Hunnicutt, Sr.v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction.

 

            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 February 22, 2010, the complainant, who is an inmate in the custody of the respondents, sent a written request to the respondents for a copy of his “RT 46.” 

 

3.      It is found that on February 24, 2010, the respondents denied the complainant’s request based on §1-210, G.S.

 

4.       By letter of complaint filed March 23, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act, by failing to provide him with a copy of the record he requested, described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

5.       Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:

 

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, …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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.

 

7.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

8.       It is concluded that the record requested by the complainant is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

9.      It is found that a “RT 46” report is the Risk Tracking report, which is part of a larger database maintained by the respondents to organize information pertaining to inmate security risks.  It is found that the RT 46 report refers to risk group, or colloquially, gang membership and contacts.  It is found that every inmate has a RT 46, but the report contains entries only where appropriate.

 

10.   It is found that the Risk Tracking database is confidential within the respondents’ facilities; and is available, through a secure log-in, to employees only if necessary for their job duties.

 

11.   It is found that the respondents do not provide copies of RT 46 reports to inmates due to concern that disclosure may create a safety risk.

 

12.   Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of:

 

Records, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction . . . has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction . . .

 

13.  It is found that the respondent Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the RT 46 may create a safety risk by disclosing gang affiliations, conflicts with other inmates, and other sensitive information to the inmate population.

 

14.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding from the complainant the record he requested.

 

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

 

1.       The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 14, 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:

 

Carnell Hunnicutt

Northern Correctional Institution

287 Bilton Road

P.O. Box 665

Somers, CT  06071

 

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,

Northern Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

c/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.

State of Connecticut

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2011-164/FD/cac/12/16/2011