Re: 8/28/01 - CT Freedom of Information Commission Ruling re FIC 2001-131 and 147
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Report of Hearing Officer
Docket #FIC 2001-131
August 28, 2001
In the Matter of a Complaint by
Jeffrey Mitchell,
Complainant
against
Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven
Respondent
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 2001-147, Les Gura and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven, was consolidated with the above captioned case for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted the office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven intervenor status. The records at issue were reviewed in camera.
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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that, on February 1, 2001, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of:
a. the 911 call made approximately at 9:55 p.m. on Friday December 4, 1998 in connection with the discovery of the body of Yale student Suzanne Jovin; and
b. all information provided to Andrew Rosenzweig, a private investigator not in the employ of the New Haven Police Department. (hereinafter "requested records").
3. It is found that by letter dated February 23, 2001 the respondent denied the request, claiming that there is an ongoing murder investigation, that the case is "open" and that release of the requested records would be prejudicial to future law enforcement action.
4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant then appealed to the Commission on March 2, 2001, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him a copy of the requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. (Emphasis added.]
6. It is found that the [1] records at issue are maintained or kept on file by the respondent, and such records are "public records" within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
-----
[1] Although the complainant's records request includes a request for records provided to a private investigator, the term “records at issue" as used herein is limited to those records pertaining to the Jovin case found to be maintained by the respondent department, and does not mean records that were provided to a private investigator.
-----
7. The respondent contends that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(A) and 1-210(b)(3)(C). G.S., which permit 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 (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known 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... (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action...
8. The records at issue were submitted to the Commission by the respondent and an in camera review was conducted. The in camera records have been marked for identification purposes as IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; IC-IV, pages 2001-131/l47-1 through 494; IC-V, 911 audio tape recording; and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2.
9. The "Index" submitted to the Commission along with the in camera records indicate that the respondent does not claim an exemption with respect to IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494 which consist of newspaper and internet articles and IC VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, a May 10, 2001 memorandum. Consequently, IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2 should have been disclosed to the complainant, and therefore, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose such records to the complainant, promptly.
10. Upon careful review of the remaining in camera records, it is found that IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-IIII, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.
11. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants not otherwise known 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, within the meaning of §1-.210(b)(3)(A), G.S.
12. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and would be prejudicial to such action, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.
13. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose IC-I, pages 2001 131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001- 131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording to the complainant.
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 with respect to IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording,
2. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with access to inspect IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, and then to obtain a copy of such records if he desires.
[signature]
Attorney Barbara E. Housen
as Hearing Officer
=====
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Report of Hearing Officer
Docket #FIC 2001-147
August 28, 2001
In the Matter of a Complaint by
Jeffrey Mitchell,
Complainant
against
Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven
Respondent
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 2001-131, Jeffrey Mitchell v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven, was consolidated with the above captioned case for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted the office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven intervenor status. The records at issue were reviewed in camera.
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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter dated March 2, 2001, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with access to inspect the police documents relating to the December 4, 1998 homicide of Yale student Suzanne Jovin (hereinafter (“requested records").
3. It is found that by letter dated March 7, 2001 the respondent denied the request, claiming that there is an ongoing murder investigation, that the case is "open" and that release of the requested records would be prejudicial to future law enforcement action and "could compromise the safety of individuals who have provided information to the police.”
4. Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated March 13, 2001 and filed with the Commission on March 14, 2001, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them access to the requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. (Emphasis added.]
6. It is found that the records at issue are maintained or kept on file by the respondent, and such records are "public records" within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. The respondent contends that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(3)(A) and 1-210(b)(3)(C). G.S., which permit 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 (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known 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... (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action...
8. The records at issue were submitted to the Commission by the respondent and an in camera review was conducted. The in camera records have been marked for identification purposes as IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; IC-IV, pages 2001-131/l47-1 through 494; IC-V, 911 audio tape recording; and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2.
9. The "Index" submitted to the Commission along with the in camera records indicate that the respondent does not claim an exemption with respect to IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494 which consist of newspaper and internet articles and IC VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2, a May 10, 2001 memorandum. Consequently, IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2 should have been disclosed to the complainant, and therefore, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose such records to the complainant, promptly.
10. Upon careful review of the remaining in camera records, it is found that IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-IIII, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording, constitute records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.
11. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants not otherwise known 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, within the meaning of §1-.210(b)(3)(A), G.S.
12. It is also found that disclosure of IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC- V, the 911 audio tape recording, would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action and would be prejudicial to such action, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S.
13. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose IC-I, pages 2001 131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001- 131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording to the complainant.
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 with respect to IC-I, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 1099; IC-II, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 675; IC-III, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 2702; and IC-V, the 911 audio tape recording,
2. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainants with access to inspect IC-IV, pages 2001-131/147-1 through 494, and IC-VI, pages 2001-131/147-1 and 2.
[signature]
Attorney Barbara E. Housen
as Hearing Officer
=====
Note: The above document was scanned and converted to text. |
