FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Timothy Dubee,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-359
Director, Safety and Security Management, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health,
Respondent October 26, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 23, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The records at issue were taken in camera by the Commission, and an inspection conducted.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., and is a law enforcement agency within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter dated December 1, 1993, the complainant requested from the respondent access to a copy of an investigation report, an arrest warrant application and all records including field notes, statements and correspondence concerning the respondent's investigation of a sexual assault complaint, filed by the complainant against an employee of the Department of Mental Health, Fairfield Hills Hospital, (hereinafter "requested" or "in camera" records).
3. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's records request by letter dated December 14, 1993, claiming that the requested investigation records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., and that no arrest warrant application exists.
4. Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainant by letter dated December 20, 1993, and filed with the Commission on December 21, 1993, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to copies of the requested records.
Docket #FIC 93-359 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent maintains records responsive to the complainant's request, with the exception of an arrest warrant application, which does not exist.
6. It is found that the records that are maintained by the respondent, and described in paragraph 5, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
7. Section 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides that nothing in the FOI Act requires disclosure of:
(3) 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 ... (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c.
8. Section 1-20c, G.S., provides that:
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.
9. It is found that the requested records total 41 pages and have been numbered pages 1 through 41 by the Commission.
10. It is found that pages 1, 2 and 3 of the in camera records consist of a supplemental report, and two letters of correspondence between the respondent and the Office of the State's Attorney, which records do not reveal uncorroborated allegations.
11. It is found that page 4 of the in camera records is the first page of the respondent's investigation report, which does not reveal uncorroborated allegations.
12. It is found that pages 5 through 13, inclusive, pages 16 through 30, inclusive, and pages 32 through 38 inclusive, of the in camera records reveal uncoroborated allegations.
Docket #FIC 93-359 Page 3
13. It is found that pages 14, 15, 31 and 39 through 41, inclusive, do not reveal uncorroborated allegations.
14. It is found that disclosure of pages 5 through 13, inclusive, 16 through 30, inclusive, and 32 through 38, inclusive of the in camera records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to 1-20c, G.S.
15. It is therefore concluded that the records described in paragraph 14, above, are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.
16. It is also concluded that disclosure of pages 1 through 4, inclusive, 14, 15, 31 and 39 through 41, inclusive, of the in camera records would not reveal uncorroborated allegations and therefore do not fall within the 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., exemption.
17. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the complainant's rights by denying him access to to the records described in paragraph 16, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall immediately provide to the complainant a copy of pages 1 through 4, inclusive, 14, 15, 31 and 39 through 41, inclusive, of the in camera records.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order above, the respondent may redact the address of the employee who is the subject of the respondent's investigation, and the names and addresses of witnesses identified in the investigation report.
3. With respect to pages 5 through 13, inclusive, 16 through 30, inclusive, and 32 through 38, inclusive, of the in camera records, the complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of October 26, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-359 Page 4
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:
TIMOTHY DUBEE
7 Deerfield Drive
Sandy Hook, CT 06482
DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
c/o Stephen G. Vitelli, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-1774
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission