FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
(Corrected)
Richard Armstrong and The
Norwich Bulletin,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-123
Colchester Police Commission
and State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Safety, Division of
State Police,
Respondents February 28, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 23 and November 28, 1995, at which times the complainants and
the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At the hearings on this matter, Charles Scott Thomas, James Nardella and
Mark Gendron, the subjects of the records at issue, were made parties to this
complaint, and Tracy Fox and The Hartford Courant were permitted to participate
as intervenors.
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
dated October 6, 1994, the complainants requested that the respondent
Department of Public Safety, (hereinafter "DPS"), provide them with
access to and copies of the state police internal affairs investigation records
into written complaints filed by Colchester residents Phillip Inkel, Richard
and Linda Verrill, and Amelia Scavetta against Colchester police officers
and/or the Connecticut State Police.
3. By letter
dated March 16, 1995, the respondent DPS advised the complainants that the
records of two unspecified internal affairs investigations were not subject to
disclosure because the investigations were still open, but that the records of
two other unspecified closed investigations would be provided once reviewed by
counsel.
#FIC 95-123 Page
2
4. By letter
dated March 20, 1995, the respondent DPS denied the complainants' requests for
the internal affairs investigation records into the Verrill and Scavetta
complaints pursuant to 1-19(b)(2) and 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.
5. By letter
dated March 14, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent Colchester
Police Commission (hereinafter "CPC") provide them with access to and
copies of the state police internal affairs investigation records into complaints
filed against Colchester police officers and/or the state police during the
1994 calendar year, including, but not limited to complaints filed by Richard
Murzin, Phillip Inkel, Richard and Linda Verrill and Amelia Scavetta.
6. By letter
dated April 3, 1995, the respondent CPC informed the complainants that it was
reviewing their requests and would respond to them shortly.
7. On April
5, 1995, the respondent CPC filed a petition for a declaratory/advisory ruling
with the Commission concerning the complainants' requests, which was denied by
the Commission at its May 10, 1995 regular meeting.
8. By letter
dated April 12, 1995, and filed April 13, 1995, the complainants appealed to
the Commission and alleged that the respondents DPS and CPC violated the
Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them access to the
requested internal affairs investigation records.
9. It is
found that in 1994 the respondent CPC received a number of civilian complaints
against certain Colchester police officers, which were forwarded to the state
police for internal affairs investigations.
10. It is
found that the following eight internal affairs investigations were conducted
by the respondent DPS as a result of the complaints referenced in paragraph 9,
above: IA# 94-042 (Murzin); IA# 94-059
(Verrill); IA# 94-060 (Inkel); IA# 94-063 (Gardner); IA# 94-064 (Scavetta); IA#
95-004 (Inkel); IA# 95-014 (Saunders); IA# 95-015 (Inkel).
11. It is
found that the requested internal affairs investigation reports are public
records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
12. It is
found that the respondent DPS provided the complainants with a copy of the IA#
95-004 records on April 7, 1995, and that the complainants withdrew that
portion of their appeal as to both respondents.
#FIC 95-123 Page
3
13. It is
found that to date neither respondent has provided the complainants with any of
the other requested records.
14. The
respondent DPS claims that only the records of the investigations conducted in
response to complaints filed by Inkel, Verrill and Scavetta are responsive to
the complainants' request as made to it.
15. It is
found that although only the records in IA# 94-059, IA# 94-060, IA# 94-064 and
IA# 95-015 are responsive to the complainants request made to the respondent
DPS, all the internal affairs investigation records identified in paragraph 10,
above, are responsive to the complainants' request made to the respondent CPC.
16. It is
found that the respondent DPS had completed all of the subject internal affairs
investigations by the date of the complainants' request, and had forwarded the
requested records in stages to the CPC, with the last one, IA# 94-042, being
received by the respondent CPC on March 23, 1995.
17. It is
found that by letter dated March 23, 1995, the respondent CPC notified officer
Thomas, officer Nardella and officer Gendron's counsel of the complainants'
request.
18. It is
found that by letter dated March 28, 1995, officers Thomas, Nardella and
Gendron notified the respondent CPC that they objected to the disclosure of the
requested reports pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S., because they contain
uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to 1-20c,
G.S. Apparently the reference to
1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S., is to the exemption found in 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.
19. It is
found that the respondent CPC has no objection to the disclosure of the records
but did not release them to the complainants because the subject officers had
filed objections to disclosure.
20. The other
respondents contend that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under
1-19(b)(2) and 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.
The respondent DPS also contends that although the records in IA# 94-042
were not requested of it, they are nonetheless exempt from disclosure because
disciplinary proceedings against certain state police troopers had not taken
place.
21. It is
found that as a partial result of the requested internal affairs investigation
records, officers Nardella and Thomas were suspended without pay, and resigned
from their employment on April 25, 1995, while disciplinary hearings before the
CPC were ongoing.
#FIC 95-123 Page
4
22. Section
1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of "personnel or medical and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal
privacy."
23. It is
found that the requested internal affairs investigation records constitute
"similar" files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
24. It is
also found that the requested records, which concern alleged police misconduct,
pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern.
25. It is
further found that the disclosure of the requested records, some of which
exonerate the subject officers, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.
26. It is
therefore concluded that disclosure of the requested records would not
constitute an invasion of personal privacy as to officers Thomas, Nardella or
Gendron; and consequently, the records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant
to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
27. Section
1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., provides that:
"Nothing in [the FOI Act] shall be construed to
require 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." (Emphasis added.)
28. Based
upon an in camera review of the requested records, it is found that they were
compiled not in connection with a criminal investigation, but rather in
connection with the investigation of employment-related charges brought by
certain civilians against the subject officers in their capacity as police
officers.
29. It is
therefore concluded that the requested internal affairs investigation records
are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S.
30. It is also
concluded that the pendency of employment- related disciplinary proceedings
against certain state police troopers does not provide an exemption to the
disclosure of the requested records.
#FIC 95-123 Page
5
31. It is
further concluded that the respondent CPC responded to the complainant's
request in accordance with 1-20a(b) and (c), G.S., and is therefore not in
violation of the FOI Act for failing to disclose the requested reports prior to
the final decision in this matter, but that the respondent DPS failed to
provide prompt access to the records requested of it, in violation of
1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent DPS shall forthwith provide the complainants with copies of the
records contained in IA# 94-059, IA# 94-060, IA# 94-064 and IA# 95-015, without
charge.
2. The
respondent CPC shall forthwith provide the complainants with copies of the
records contained in IA# 94-042, IA# 94-059, IA# 94-060, IA# 94-063, IA#
94-064, IA# 95-014 and IA# 95-015.
3. In
complying with paragraph 2 of the order, the respondent CPC may redact: the full names of minors; medical reports
and references to medical reports; the dates of birth, home addresses and
telephone numbers of non-parties; fingerprinting reports; and detailed
polygraph reports setting forth questions and answers.
4.
Henceforth, the respondent DPS shall strictly comply with the
requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 28, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-123 Page
6
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:
Richard Armstrong and Norwich
Bulletin
66 Franklin Street
Norwich, CT 06360
James Nardella, Mark Gendron
and Charles Scott Thomas
c/o Elliot B. Spector, Esq.
Sack, Spector and Barrett
836 Farmington Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06119-1544
Colchester Police Commission
c/o Richard A. Mills, Jr.,
Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police
c/o Ann E. Lynch, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Mackenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105-2294
Tracy Fox
Hartford Courant
c/o Town News
200 Adams Street
Manchester, CT 06040
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission