Comm'r of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n
194 A.3d 759
Conn.2018Background
- In 2014 The Hartford Courant requested documents referenced in the Connecticut State Police report on the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook shooting (e.g., a spiral-bound notebook, a class photo, and a spreadsheet ranking mass murders).
- The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (the department) failed to timely respond, later claiming the items were evidence/seized property and thus not public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- The Freedom of Information Commission (the commission) held a hearing, found the items were public records, and ordered disclosure; the department appealed under the UAPA and obtained a stay.
- The trial court agreed the items were public records but concluded they were exempt from disclosure under the FOIA proviso "except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute" (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(a)) because the search-and-seizure statutes require return of seized property and thus allegedly conflict with disclosure.
- The Division of Criminal Justice intervened; the case reached the Connecticut Supreme Court on consolidated appeals.
- The Supreme Court reversed the trial court: it held the search-and-seizure statutes do not, by their terms, create confidentiality or otherwise limit disclosure/copying and therefore do not satisfy § 1-210(a); the Court also held seized documents can be "public records."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether search-and-seizure statutes exempt seized items from FOIA under § 1-210(a) ("except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute") | Dept.: statutes that require custody/return of seized property create a conflict with FOIA and therefore operate as a shield from disclosure | Courant/Altimari: § 1-210(a) requires the cited law to expressly provide confidentiality or limit copying/disclosure; seizure statutes are silent on confidentiality | Held: Reversed trial court — search-and-seizure statutes do not satisfy § 1-210(a) because they do not by their terms restrict disclosure or copying; exemptions construed narrowly |
| Whether seized documents are "public records" under FOIA (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-200(5)) | Dept.: documents are private property of third parties and not agency records; thus not "relating to the conduct of the public's business" | Courant/Altimari: items seized as suspected evidence relate to public business and fall within FOIA; commission found public interest and investigatory use | Held: Seized documents that are evidence (probable cause) relate to the conduct of public business and may be public records under § 1-200(5) |
| Whether Pictometry and copyright/conflict analysis supports exemption here | Dept.: Pictometry allowed exemption where federal law (copyright) imposed conflicting obligations; search-and-seizure statutes likewise impose conflicting duties (return property) | Courant/Altimari: Pictometry required an express statutory limitation on disclosure/copying; return/ownership duties do not expressly limit public disclosure | Held: Pictometry does not help dept.; it required express statutory language limiting disclosure/copying; mere duty to return property does not create confidentiality |
| Whether the department waived alternative statutory exemptions by failing to present evidence at commission hearing | Courant/Altimari: department bore burden to prove exemption and failed to produce evidence (witnesses had not seen documents) | Dept.: argued on legal grounds and proffered affidavits expressing belief of exemption | Held: The department failed to meet its burden at the administrative hearing; absence of proof doomed other exemption claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Chief of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252 Conn. 377 (explains § 1-210(a) applies only to laws that by their terms shield records from disclosure)
- Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 298 Conn. 703 (Megan's Law exemption upheld where statute expressly restricted dissemination)
- Pictometry International Corp. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 307 Conn. 648 (federal copyright law satisfied § 1-210(a) because it imposes express limits on copying/use that conflict with FOIA)
- Commissioner of Correction v. Freedom of Information Commission, 307 Conn. 53 (federal regulation expressly barring disclosure can supply § 1-210(a) exemption)
- Groton Police Dept. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 104 Conn. App. 150 (state statute expressly declaring records confidential supports § 1-210(a) exception)