Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission
2012 WL 3079209
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Complainants requested arrest records from the Derby incident on March 18, 2008 under the Freedom of Information Act.
- Department initially exempted the entire report under § 1-215, but provided a press release with blotter-like details and narrative.
- Commission concluded § 1-215 mandates disclosure of arrest records and the department provided the ‘record of arrest’ within that framework.
- Trial court held § 1-215 plain language requires disclosure of blotter information and at least one additional item; the department’s news release satisfied § 1-215 (b)(2).
- Appeal focused on whether § 1-215 plainly requires disclosure as argued and whether the court should defer to the commission’s statutory construction.
- Department eventually provided full documents after the criminal matter concluded; the case was moot on the § 1-215 exception but viable for repetition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1-215 plainly requires disclosure of the record of arrest. | Sollo argues the statute mandates disclosure of arrest records. | Department contends § 1-215 limits to blotter plus one additional item not all records. | Plain and unambiguous; requires blotter plus one additional item. |
| Whether the court should defer to the commission’s statutory construction versus its own review standard. | Commission seeks deference under agency expertise. | Court should not defer where the statute has not been firmly scrutinized; Gifford framework controls. | Court did not defer; adhered to de novo interpretation consistent with Gifford and related authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 641 (1993) (interprets l-20b (now l-215); arrest reports disclosure limited pending prosecution)
- Weigold v. Patel, 81 Conn. App. 347 (2004) (upholds judgment even if reasoned differently; appellate deference limits)
- Gaida v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 108 Conn. App. 19 (2008) (statutory interpretation; special force of stare decisis in statutory context)
- Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26 (2010) (precedent on binding Supreme Court authority)