Freedom
of Information Commission
of
the State of Connecticut
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Joseph P. Tavana,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1996-130
Chief of Police, Hartford Police
Department,
Respondent October
16, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 12, 1996, 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.
By letter dated April 2, 1996, the complainant, a retired Hartford
police officer, requested that the respondent provide him with access to a
criminal investigation concerning allegations made against him while he was
still on active duty.
3.
It is found that by letter dated April 9, 1996, the respondent denied
the complainant’s request, stating that criminal investigations are considered
confidential as a matter of policy.
4.
By letter dated April 20 and filed April 22, 1996, the complainant
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request.
5.
It is found that in October 1994, the respondent commenced a criminal
investigation into allegations of bribes, kick-backs and larceny occurring at
the Morgan Street Detention Center in Hartford, which is jointly run by the
Hartford Police Department, Hartford County Sheriffs and the state Department
of Correction.
6. It is
found that during 1994, the complainant was stationed at the Morgan Street
Detention Center and was implicated in the alleged illegal activities, along
with approximately ten other individuals who worked there at the time.
7. It is
found that the respondent maintains a file of the investigation described in
paragraph 5, above, and that it is a public record within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
8. The
respondent claims that the investigation file is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to §§1-19(b)(3)(G) and 1-20c,
G.S.
9. Section 1-19(b)(3)(G), G.S., permits the
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 …uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to
section 1-20c.
10. Section 1-20c, G.S., provides:
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.
11. It is
found that the investigation was closed in February 1996, and the investigating
officer made a determination that no probable cause existed to charge any of
the individuals investigated with a criminal offense, in part because the
allegations made could not be corroborated.
12. It is
found that the requested investigation file is subject to destruction pursuant
to §1-20c, G.S.
13. It is
therefore concluded that the requested investigation file is exempt from
disclosure under §§1-19(b)(3)(G) and 1-20c,
G.S., and that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide
the complainant with a copy of the investigation file.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1.
The
complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
October 16, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
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:
Joseph
P. Tavana
19
June Circle
Rocky
Hill, CT 06067
Chief
of Police, Hartford Police Department
c/o
Ivan A. Ramos, Esq.
550
Main Street
Hartford,
CT 06103
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission