FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Tracey Thomas, T. Dennie
Williams and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-237
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety, Division of State
Police and State of
Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection,
Respondents April 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 24, 1996, at which time the complainants and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC
95-247, T. Dennie Williams and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety and Troop F, State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety, was consolidated with the above-captioned matter for purpose of
hearing.
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 dated July 17, 1995 and filed with the Commission on July 18,
1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents
violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them
access to reports concerning the July 6, 1995 Hammonasset beach state park
drowning of twenty-one year old special olympian athlete Ramesh Mali
(hereinafter "the drowning").
3. It is
found that between July 6, 1995 and July 17, 1995 the complainants made several
requests to the respondents for reports drafted by the respondents regarding
the drowning, including reports of the respondents' inquiries into the drowning
and life guard and beach manager reports.
The complainants renewed their request to the respondent department of
public safety by letters dated July 25 and October 19, 1995.
4. It is
found that the respondent department of environmental protection provided the
complainants with records responsive to their requests on or about July 25,
1995.
Docket #FIC 95-237 Page
2
5. It is
found that the complainants, by letter dated July 25, 1995, informed the
Commission that they were withdrawing the complaint as against the respondent
department of environmental protection.
6. It is
found that the respondent department of public safety (hereinafter "the
respondent department") informed the complainants by letter dated July 12,
1995 that their request was being reviewed.
7. It is
found that the respondent department denied the complainants request by letter
dated July 19, 1995 claiming that the investigation "is not
completed."
8. It is
found that the respondent department provided the complainants with access to
all of the requested records by letter dated November 8, 1995.
9.
Accordingly, the only issue before the Commission is whether the
respondent department's provision of access on November 8, 1995 comports with
1-19(a), G.S.
10. It is
found that the requested records consist of a one page initial missing person
report dated July 8, 1995; summaries of the drowning incident and chronology of
action taken dated July 8, 10, 12 and 26, August 10 and 16, 1995, and September
7, 1995; statements of witnesses dated July 6 through July 9; map of
Hammonasset beach state park; copy of Mali's special olympic identification
card; log of federal, state and local agencies involved in the investigation; a
report of the photographs taken of Mali at the office of the chief medical
examiner on July 11, 1995; records of the search and search area worksheet;
United States coast guard message sheet and log regarding the search;
department of environmental protection case report dated July 11, 1995; and a
log of the search dives (hereinafter "requested records").
11. It is found
that the requested records are public records within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
12. The
respondent department contends that the requested records are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
13. Section
1-19(b)(3), G.S., permits nondisclosure 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
Docket #FIC 95-237 Page 3
or the identity of witnesses not
otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to
threat or intimidation if their identity was made known, (B) signed statements
of witnesses, (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement
action if prejudicial to such action, (D) investigatory techniques not
otherwise known to the general public, (E) arrest records of a juvenile, which
shall also include any investigatory files, concerning the arrest of such
juvenile, compiled for law enforcement purposes, (F) 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 (G) uncorroborated allegations
subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-20c.
14. It is
found that the requested records were compiled during the respondents
investigation of the drowning incident.
15. It is
found that on July 11, 1995 the chief medical examiner certified the cause of
Mali's death as asphyxia and the manner of death as an accident.
16. It is
found that the respondent department of public safety, from the onset of the
investigation, treated the investigation as potentially a criminal matter, not
then being able to conclude whether a homicide, accident or suicide had
occurred.
17. It is
found that the respondent department's Major Crime Squad conducted the
investigation.
18. It is
found that the August 16 and September 7, 1995 portions of the investigation
report, described in paragraph 10, above, indicate that the investigation was
closed and coded "no criminal aspect."
19. It is
therefore found that as of August 16, 1995 the respondent department no longer
treated the investigation as potentially a criminal matter.
20. It is
also found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the requested
records prior to August 16, 1995, would not be in the public interest because
it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants or
Docket #FIC 95-237 Page 4
witnesses within the meaning
of 1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S., information to be used in a prospective law
enforcement action within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S.,
investigatory techniques within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(D), G.S., arrest
records of a juvenile within the meaning of 1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S., and the
name and address of the victim of a sexual assault within the meaning of
1-19(b)(3)(F), G.S.
21. It is
found however, that disclosure of the requested records prior to August 16,
1995, when the investigation was still being treated as a possible criminal
matter, would have disclosed signed statements of witnesses within the meaning
of 1-19(b)(3)(B), G.S.
22.
Consequently it is concluded that the requested records, with the
exception of the signed witness statements, described in paragraph 21, above,
are not exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
23. It is
concluded that the respondent department of public safety violated
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to promptly provide the
complainants with access to a copy of the requested records, except the signed
witness statements, as soon as such records were prepared, received and being
maintained within the the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
24. It is
also concluded that the respondent department of public safety violated
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to promptly provide the
complainants with access to a copy of the signed witness statements as of
August 16, 1995.
25. The
Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. Henceforth
the respondent department of public safety shall strictly comply with the
requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The
complaint is dismissed as against the respondent department of environmental
protection.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-237 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:
Tracey Thomas, T. Dennie
Williams and The Hartford Courant
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police and State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental Protection
c/o Sharon Hartley,
Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission