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