FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final
Decision
Jon L. Schoenhorn,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-181
Simsbury Police Department
and Records/Communication Supervisor of the Simsbury Police Department,
Respondents September
23, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on July 28, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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:
1. The respondent
department is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated June 8, 1987 the complainant made a request of the respondent department
for copies of the following records:
All
police reports, statements, documents and photocopies of photographs prepared
in connection with departmental case number 0558-87 (incident at Emmon's
Tropical Fish on or about March 19, 1987).
3. By letter
dated June 11, 1987, the respondent denied the complainant's request.
4. The respondent
department claims the records are exempt under §1-19(a), G.S., because §51-14,
G.S., which authorizes the judges of the Superior Court to promulgate rules
governing discovery in Superior Court cases, is a state statute which otherwise
provides limitations on disclosure.
Docket #FIC 87-181 Page
2
5. The respondent
department also claims that §1-19b(b), G.S., bars disclosure of the records,
and also that by analogy with §1-19c, G.S., which exempts the division of
criminal justice from the FOIA, the police records compiled for criminal cases
prosecuted by the division are exempt from disclosure.
6. The respondent
department claims further that the records are exempt under §1-19(b)(3), G.S.,
because disclosure would occur with respect to the identity of persons
providing information and because disclosure would be prejudicial to the
pending law enforcement action against Rodney R. Taylor.
7. The respondent
also contends that disclosure is barred by the Connecticut Constitution.
8. The
complainant represents Rodney R. Taylor, a defendant in a criminal prosecution
designated No. CR 870066993.
9. The
complainant was permitted to inspect the file in the above case of the
assistant state's attorney in Enfield.
However, no copies of the records in the file were made available to
him.
10. It is found that the file which was seen by the complainant may contain information which
would identify informants which are not otherwise known, and which is exempt
under §1-19(b)3(B), G.S.
11. It is found
that the file which was seen by the complainant reveals no investigatory
techniques not otherwise known to the general public, discloses no arrest
record of juveniles, and reveals no names or addresses of a victim of sexual
assault.
12. It is further found that the file which was seen by
the complainant does not contain information which would be prejudicial to the
prospective law enforcement action.
13. Except for that portion of the file which may reveal
the identity of informants not otherwise known, it is found that the respondent
failed to prove that the records sought by the complainant are exempt under
§1-19(b)(3), G.S.
14. It is found that the complainant has not filed
motions on behalf of Rodney Taylor for disclosure of the records which he seeks
from the police department.
Docket #FIC 87-181 Page
3
15. It is found that rules of the superior court created
pursuant to §51-14, G.S., do
not supersede the requirement of public disclosure set forth at §1-19(a), G.S.,
because the records are not sought pursuant to the procedures and discovery
rights set forth in the Connecticut Practice Book at §§731-755, and because the
file has already been inspected by the complainant with the permission of the
assistant state's attorney.
16. It is found
that §1-19b(b), G.S., does not exempt from disclosure the police records which
are sought herein because the records
are not sought pursuant to any procedures or discovery rights set forth in the
Connecticut Practice Book at §§731-755, and because the file has been
inspected by the complainant with the
permission of the assistant state's attorney.
17. It is
found that §1-19c, G.S., does not exempt the requested records from disclosure.
18. It is found
that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide any constitutional claim which
may be raised by the respondent.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
shall forthwith provide the complainant with the records requested by him on
June 8, 1987, which are described in paragraph 2 above.
2. If the records
do contain the names of informants not otherwise known, these may be redacted
before the records are made available to the complainant.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of September 23, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission