Department of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission
298 Conn. 703
| Conn. | 2010Background
- Heather Nann Collins sought from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) a list of 41 convicted sex offenders and related non-public information.
- DPS initially believed none of the requested information was subject to disclosure but later released redacted court orders restricting dissemination under Megan’s Law.
- The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) held that only registry information publicly listed on the DPS website constitutes registration information exempt from disclosure, and ordered redaction accordingly.
- Wood and the Journal Inquirer challenged the FOIC decision; the trial court remanded for potential regulation of ‘registration information’ and ultimately upheld disclosure.
- The department appealed, arguing plenary review is required for statutory construction and that the FOIC misinterpreted § 54-255 and § 54-258 (a)(4).
- The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the case presents a pure question of law: the meaning of “registration information” under Megan’s Law, and that plenary review applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of review applies to FOIC’s statutory construction? | Department argues plenary review; FOIC’s construction deserves deference. | Wood contends abuse of discretion is appropriate due to agency expertise. | Plenary review applies; statute construction is a pure question of law. |
| What does 'registration information' mean under Megan’s Law § 54-255 and § 54-258 (a)(4)? | Registration information is limited to data that identifies the registrant or victim. | Registration information encompasses all information received and entered into the registry. | Registration information means information about the offender that has been received and entered into the registry. |
| Are the requested court records and related data 'public records' under § 1-210 (a)? | Requested items are public records of government conduct. | Exemptions for restricted information under § 54-255/54-258 (a)(4) apply; not all data are public. | No; mandated disclosure is limited by Megan’s Law exemptions; most requested items fall outside public records when restricted. |
| Do Megan’s Law restrictions apply to information the department received but not entered into the registry? | Dissemination restrictions apply broadly to registry information. | Only information entered into the registry and restricted by court orders is protected. | Restricted information is tied to registry data; the court orders’ scope governs disclosure. |
| Is the information about the court personnel (judge, clerks, attorneys) within the category of 'registration information'? | Such information may be part of case records and public records. | This information is not part of the offender’s registration information and is not necessarily public. | The information about court personnel is not 'registration information' and is not required to be disclosed under the act. |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128 (2001) (abuse of discretion standard limited; deference when statutory interpretation is settled)
- Connecticut Assn. of Not-for-Profit Providers for the Aging v. Dept. of Social Services, 244 Conn. 378 (1998) (time-tested agency interpretation; deference if longstanding and reasonable)
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 252 Conn. 115 (2000) (deference for time-tested agency interpretation when appropriate)
- State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 208 Conn. 709 (1988) (deference to agency interpretations in certain contexts)
- Ottochian v. Freedom of Information Commission, 221 Conn. 393 (1992) (statutory interpretation of terms outside the act; case-by-case)
- Wiese v. Freedom of Information Commission, 82 Conn. App. 604 (2004) (agency interpretation not always given deferential treatment)
- Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004) (open government policy favors disclosure; exemptions narrowly construed)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (public access to court records; docket sheets presumptively open)