FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Kirk A. Bennett,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 94-422
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety,
Respondent October 11, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 10, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent
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
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is
found that by letter dated November 1, 1994, the complainant requested that the
respondent provide him with access to a copy of Internal Affairs
("I.A.") report 94-048, an internal affairs investigation report
concerning trooper William Burtis (hereinafter "the report").
3. It is
found that by letter dated November 3, 1994 the respondent informed the
complainant that his request would be processed after the official conclusion
of the I. A. investigation, which the respondent indicated had not yet
occurred.
4. It is
found that Burtis objected to the disclosure of the report on November 21,
1994, following notification by the respondent that a request for access had
been made.
5. The
respondent then denied the complainant's request on November 23, 1994, on the
basis that disclosure would constitute an invasion of Burtis' privacy.
6. Having
failed to gain access to the report the complainant appealed the denial to the
Commission by letter dated November 29, 1994 and filed with the Commission on
December 1, 1994.
Docket #FIC 94-422 Page
2
7. It is
found that Burtis' objection was timely as it was filed within nine business
days of November 8, 1994, when the respondent sent the notice to Burtis.
8. It is
found that the report was prepared by the respondent's Internal Affairs
Department ("I. A. department") following an investigation of a
complaint filed by Robert Franz, a client of the complainant, against Burtis
alleging misconduct on the part of Burtis (hereinafter "the
investigation").
9. It is
found that the respondent maintains the investigation file which contains
records including statements of witnesses, Franz and the final report of the I.
A. department.
10. It is
concluded that the investigation file and report are public records within the
meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
11. It is
also concluded that the investigation file and records contained therein are
similiar file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is
found that the investigation was completed prior to November 6, 1994 and the I.
A. department found no misconduct on the part of Burtis.
13. The
respondent and Burtis object to the release of the I. A. file and report, and
contend that disclosure would invade Burtis' privacy because it would lead to
gossip and undermine the state police's ability to function properly.
14. It is
found however that disclosure of the I. A. file and the report which totally
exonerates Burtis would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
15. It is
found that the subject matter of the investigation file and report would be a
matter of legitimate public concern.
16. It
is also found that the respondent and Burtis offered only their generalized
concerns, but failed to prove a claim of exemption under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
17. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S., when it failed to provide the complainant with access to a copy of the
report and file in I. A. investigation 94-048.
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 upon the receipt of the final decision in this
matter provide the complainant with access to a copy of the records contained
in I. A. investigation file 94-048.
Docket #FIC 94-422 Page
3
2. In
complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the names,
addresses and telephone numbers
of all witnesses who provided
statements in I. A. investigation 94-048.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 94-422 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:
Kirk A. Bennett, Esq.
Sinchak & Bennett
120 Old Ridgefield Road
P.O. Box 460
Wilton, CT 06897
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety
c/o Madeline Melchionne, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission