Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission
21 A.3d 737
| Conn. | 2011Background
- This case concerns whether General Statutes § 1-217, restricting disclosure of residential addresses, applies to motor vehicle grand lists and their component data provided to town assessors under § 14-163.
- The department supplied an electronic file (MVR102.dat) to the North Stonington assessor for the town's motor vehicle grand list; the assessor redacted about 40 addresses prior to public release.
- A private investigator requested an exact electronic copy of the file; the town disclosed a redacted version and offered a paid full version.
- The Freedom of Information Commission ordered the town to produce an exact electronic copy without redaction, holding § 1-217 applies to the grand list and its data; Davis v. FOIC was cited.
- The trial court dismissed administrative appeals, and the parties challenged whether the electronic file is the grand list and whether redactions are permissible; Public Acts 2010, No. 10-110, § 22 (amending § 14-163) was argued as potentially mootifying the issue.
- The majority held that § 1-217 applies to grand lists and their data, reversing the trial court and remanding for sustained appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1-217 apply to grand lists and data under § 14-163? | § 1-217 protects residences; grand list disclosure is unlawful. | § 1-217 does not apply to grand lists; public records must be open. | Yes, § 1-217 applies to grand lists and data. |
| Is redaction of protected addresses compatible with § 12-55(a)? | Redaction maintains public record integrity and safety. | Redaction conflicts with openness of the grand list. | Redaction may be allowed when § 1-217 applies, harmonizing statutes. |
| Does P.A. 2010-110, § 22, moot these appeals? | Retroactive effect would favor disclosure. | Mootness not achieved; relief still possible. | Not dispositive; retroactivity would affect analysis, not moot the case. |
| Should Davis and Gold control analysis given § 1-217's applicability? | Those cases support openness of grand lists. | They do not address § 1-217's applicability to grand lists. | Instructive but not controlling; de novo statutory interpretation applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45 (2002) (aff’d per curiam; applicability of exemptions to assessors not precluded by § 1-217)
- Gold v. McDermott, 32 Conn.Supp. 583 (App. Sess. 1975) (open open records for grand lists; exemptions contemplated by act)
- Rocky Hill Indus. Dist. v. Hartford Rayon Corp., 122 Conn. 392 (1937) (openness of tax records aiding accuracy of tax scheme)
- Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 298 Conn. 703 (2010) (statutory interpretation governs review when agency interpretation lacks time-tested framework)