FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Susan B.
Kietzman and The Westerly Sun,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-105
Chief of Police
of the Town of Stonington,
Respondent June
3, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 6, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 18, 1986, the
complainants alleged that they were denied
rights of access to public records when the respondent refused to
provide copies of public records concerning two rapes which occurred in
Pawcatuck on August 10, 1985, and August 24, 1985.
3. By
letter dated April 11, 1986, the complainants requested:
all the information
pertinent to the Pawcatuck rapes of August 10 and 24, 1985, which were
committed by Gary Smith, including officers' reports and statements,
supervisors' reports and statements, original arrest reports, affidavits used
to compile evidence, and any other related information in this case.
4. The
complainants stated at hearing that they were not interested in records
containing the name and address of the victim, the educational background of
the accused, the family history of the accused and the victim, or records
dealing with medical records of either the accused or the victim.
Docket #FIC
86-105 Page Two
5. The
complainants also stated that they do not seek letters about the rapes which
were written to the police commission and the press releases and newspaper
articles which the police chief has collected.
6. The
respondent stated that it was not claiming any of the exemptions set forth at
1-19(b)(3), G.S.
7. The
respondent did claim, however, that all of the requested records are exempt
under 1-19(b)(4), G.S., as "records pertaining to strategy and
negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation to which the public
agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated
or otherwise settled."
8. The
respondent claims that litigation is probable because NOW has urged the victim
to sue the police, and the individual who was identified mistakenly as the
rapist and arrested for the first rape, has indicated that he plans to sue the
respondent.
9. No
lawsuit is presently pending against the respondent with respect to the events
encompassed within the scope of the complainants' request.
10. The
respondent argues that by focusing the public consciousness upon the events
through articles in the newspaper, the complainants will be taking on a
relationship to the matter which is analogous to strategy with respect to the
possible lawsuits, and that the newspaper articles could affect the venue of
the upcoming trials.
11. It
is found that the respondent's claim based upon 1-19(b)(4), G.S., is
without merit.
12. Section
1-19(b)(3), G.S. exempts from disclosure the name and address of the victim of
a sexual assault.
13. It
is found that if more than merely the name and address of the victim must be
deleted from the requested material in order to protect the identity of the
victim from disclosure, that such material is exempt under 1-19(b)(3)(E),
G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-105 Page
Three
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The
respondent shall provide to the complainants the records requested by
them. They may delete, however, the
material which the complainants have stated they do not seek, and material
which would identify the victim which is exempt under 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 28, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission