FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-237
Chief of Police, Coventry Police Department, and Coventry Police Department,
Respondents January 26, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 4, 1993, at which time the complainants 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed September 22, 1993 the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their access to certain police records was denied.
3. Specifically, the complainants alleged that they were denied access to an arrest warrant affidavit; that they were denied the minimum record of arrest information pursuant to 1-20b, G.S.; and that they were overcharged for a copy of a page of the police blotter.
4. Also, the complainants alleged that they were denied freedom of the press rights guaranteed to them by the Connecticut and United States constitutions.
5. It is found that a reporter for the complainant Journal Inquirer requested access to a certain arrest warrant affidavit from the respondent chief of police on September 16, 1993.
6. It is found that the chief denied the request.
7. It is concluded that the requested arrest warrant affidavit is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 2
8. The respondents maintain that they are not required to provide access to arrest warrant affidavits pursuant to 1-20b, G.S., and Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 641 (1993).
9. Section 1-20b, G.S., provides:
Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes to the contrary, any record of the arrest of any person, other than a juvenile, except a record erased pursuant to chapter 961a, shall be a public record from the time of such arrest and shall be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15 and subsection (a) of section 1-19. For the purposes of this section, "record of the arrest" means the name and address of the person arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest and the offense for which the person was arrested.
10. Section 1-19(b)(3) provides that disclosure is not required 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 (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known, (B) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action, (C) investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public, (D) arrest records of a juvenile, which shall also include any investigatory files, concerning the arrest of such juvenile, compiled for law enforcement purposes, (E) the name and address of the victim of a sexual assault under section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b or 53a-73a, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals under section 53-21, or of an attempt thereof or (F) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c ....
11. It is concluded that Gifford holds that arrest reports are within the coverage of 1-20b, G.S., and are therefore not required to be disclosed, since they contain information that goes beyond the "record of the arrest" information required to be disclosed by 1-20b, G.S..
12. It is also concluded that Gifford does not decide what other law enforcement records or reports besides arrest reports may or may not be within the provisions of 1-20b, G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 3
13. The Commission must therefore determine as a matter of law whether the requested arrest warrant affidavit falls within the provisions of 1-20b, G.S., or within the provisions of 1-19(b)(3) or another statute.
14. The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1985) defines the word report to mean: "An account presented usually in detail[;] [a] formal account of the proceedings or transactions of a group."
15. The Commission also takes administrative notice of the fact that Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1979) defines the word report to mean: "An official or formal statement of facts or proceedings."
16. The Commission also takes administrative notice of the fact that an arrest warrant affidavit is a written or printed declaration of facts, confirmed by oath, taken before a person having the authority to administer an oath, and used to establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused committed it.
17. It is concluded that the language of 1-20b, G.S., in making public "record of the arrest" information "from the time of such arrest," refers to an arrest either that is occurring or that has occurred.
18. It is found that, of necessity, arrest warrant affidavits precede the arrest on the charges that the affidavit supports, and therefore do not comprise a record of that arrest but rather a record of the investigation that preceded the application for an arrest warrant.
19. It is also found that an arrest warrant affidavit is not a report of an arrest but rather a sworn report by a police officer of facts discovered during an investigation, which facts lead the affiant to believe that there is probable cause for an arrest.
20. It is found that the requested arrest warrant affidavit is a record of a law enforcement agency, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
21. It is also found that the information contained in the requested arrest warrant affidavit was compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
22. The Commission takes adminstrative notice of the fact that an arrest is a law enforcement action within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 4
23. It is therefore found that the requested arrest warrant affidavit contains information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
24. It is concluded that the requested arrest warrant affidavit falls within the specific language of 1-19(b)(3), and not within the specific language of 1-20b, G.S.
25. It is therefore concluded that the requested arrest warrant affidavit is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-20b, G.S.
26. The respondents made no claim that the requested arrest warrant affidavit was exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
27. It is therefore found that the respondents failed to prove that the requested arrest warrant affidavit is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
28. Although the respondents maintained at the hearing that they do not now know whether they had a copy of the arrest warrant affidavit at the time of the request, it is found that the respondents denied the request at that time without making any inquiry into whether they had a copy of the requested record.
29. It is concluded under the facts of this case that the respondents' present uncertainty as to whether they had a copy of the requested arrest warrant affidavit at the time of the request is not a defense to their denial of access.
30. The respondents also now maintain that since the complainants did not put their request in writing, the respondents were not required to provide access to the arrest warrant affidavit.
31. It is found that at the time of the complainants' request, the respondents did not condition either access to or a copy of the requested affidavit upon the submission of a written request.
32. It is also concluded that nothing in 1-19(a), G.S., requires that a request to inspect a public writing be reduced to writing.
33. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S., by denying the complainants access to the requested arrest warrant affidavit.
34. It is found that the complainants subsequently obtained a copy of the requested arrest warrant affidavit from the superior court in Rockville.
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 5
35. It is therefore concluded that an order of disclosure is not appropriate in this case.
36. The complainants maintain that since the copy of the police blotter they were given did not pick up the time of the arrest from the original blotter, they were denied access to the time of the arrest within the meaning of 1-20b, G.S.
37. It is found that the complainants were not denied access at the time of their request to the original police blotter that records the time of the arrest.
38. It is therefore concluded under the facts of this case that the respondents did not violate 1-19(a) or 1-20b, G.S., by providing the complainants with an imperfect copy of the police blotter.
39. The complainants also maintain that they were denied access to the record of the place of the arrest.
40. It is found that the police blotter records the name and address of the person arrested, but not the place of the arrest.
41. The respondents maintain that all arrests by their police department take place in Coventry, and that therefore the place of the arrest was Coventry.
42. It is concluded, however, that the phrase "place of the arrest" in 1-20b, G.S., means more than the name of the town in which all arrests take place.
43. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-19(a) and 1-20b, G.S., by denying the complainants access to a record of the place of the arrest.
44. It is found that the respondents charged the complainants $1.00 for the page comprising a copy of the pertinent page of the police blotter.
45. Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides that the fee for a plain copy shall not exceed fifty cents per page.
46. The respondents admit the overcharge, and maintain that it was inadvertent.
47. It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-15(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 6
1. With respect to requests for arrest warrant affidavits, henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19, G.S.
2. With respect to fees for copies of public records, the rspondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15, G.S.
3. With respect to requests for a record of the place of an arrest, the respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-20b, G.S.
4. Paragraph 3 of this order shall not to be construed to require the respondents to change the information they record in their police blotter, but rather to require them to provide the record of the place of an arrest upon request.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of January 26, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-237 Page 7
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:
Mr. Robert H. Boone
Journal Inquirer
306 Progress Drive
Manchester, CT 06040
Chief of Police, Coventry Police Department
and Coventry Police Department
c/o Abbot B. Schwebel, Esq.
Schwebel, Burke, Hall, Pigeon & Gnutti
130 Union Street
P.O. Box 757
Rockville, CT 06066
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission