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