Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission
93 A.3d 1142
Conn.2014Background
- This case involves statutory interpretation of Connecticut’s FOIA open-records provisions during a pending criminal prosecution.
- Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission (1993) held that during pendency, disclosure is exclusively governed by § 1-215, limiting disclosure to police blotter information.
- Public Act 94-246 (1994) amended § 1-215 to require designation of an additional item (b)(2) and added § 1-210(b)(3) guidance, signaling a compromise with limited expanded disclosure.
- The department released a news release containing arrest information in the Derby case, arguing it satisfied § 1-215(b)(2).
- The trial court and Appellate Court concluded that § 1-215 governs during pendency and that the news release met the statute’s requirements; the Supreme Court granted certification to resolve whether PA 94-246 changed Gifford’s framework or limited its scope.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court, holding that § 1-215 remains the exclusive regime during pendency and that the statute’s extratextual history does not justify deferring to the FOIC’s time-tested interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1-215 exclusively governs disclosures during pendency of a prosecution. | Commission argues §1-210(a) and §1-210(b)(3) govern broader disclosures. | Department contends §1-215 alone governs pending-prosecution disclosures, with limited exceptions. | §1-215 remains exclusive during pendency; §1-210(a)/(b)(3) do not require broader disclosure. |
| Whether Public Act 94-246 overruled Gifford’s interpretation. | FOIC contends PA 94-246 overruled Gifford and expanded disclosures. | Department argues PA 94-246 increased disclosures but did not overrule §1-215 exclusivity. | PA 94-246 did not disturb Gifford’s framework that §1-215 exclusively governs during pendency. |
| Whether the FOIC’s time-tested interpretation warrants deference. | FOIC asks for deference as time-tested and reasonable. | Court should not defer given lack of judicial scrutiny and ambiguity. | Court declined deference; extratextual history shows legislative intent to limit expanded disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 641 (Conn. 1993) (held §1-215 exclusive for arrest records during pendency; limited blotter info and a second item)
- Chief of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252 Conn. 377 (Conn. 2000) (discovery Rights are separate from FOIA disclosures; discovery not controlled by FOIA)
- Dept. of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor Relations, 296 Conn. 594 (Conn. 2010) (time-tested agency interpretations may receive deference in statutory construction)