Tompkins v. Freedom of Information Commission
136 Conn. App. 496
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Duane Tompkins, a former lieutenant with the Enfield Police Department, was the subject of an internal affairs investigation after the department recovered personal records from his thumb drive.
- The town and Tompkins severed his employment in 2008 under a severance agreement that conditioned disclosure disputes on privacy protections under § 1-210.
- Journal Inquirer, Wood, and Carlesso requested records related to the suspension and internal investigation; the town refused citing exemptions under § 1-210 and an objection under § 1-214.
- The FOI Commission ordered disclosure of the subject records without redactions in August 2008; the trial court remanded for in camera review and the commission later redacted some sexually explicit language and residential addresses.
- The trial court upheld the commission’s amended decision under § 1-210(b)(2), declining to apply constitutional privacy rights or § 1-210(b)(3)(G) on uncorroborated criminal allegations.
- On appeal, the plaintiff argued exemptions under § 1-210(b)(2) and (b)(3)(G), as well as constitutional privacy and exclusionary concerns, but the court affirmed the agency’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1-210(b)(2) privacy exemption applies when records implicate public concern | Tompkins argues constitutional privacy should govern the exemption. | FOIC applies Perkins test without constitutional privacy analogy. | Perkins test governs; privacy rights do not merge with constitutional standard. |
| Whether the records pertain to legitimate public concern to defeat the exemption | Records do not relate to legitimate public concerns. | Records address department investigation and public safety, implicating public concern. | Yes; records relate to legitimate public concern and are not exempt. |
| Whether the records are subject to § 1-210(b)(3)(G) destruction due to uncorroborated allegations | Records should be exempt under (b)(3)(G) for uncorroborated allegations. | Claim should be reviewed but not decided on appeal due to trial court issues. | Issue not decided on appeal; not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993) (two-part Perkins test for invasion of privacy under § 1-210(b)(2))
- Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1991) (constitutional privacy not controlling the statutory exemption)
- Rocque v. Freedom of Information Commission, 255 Conn. 651 (2001) (public policy favoring disclosure; redaction where appropriate)
- Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Division v. Freedom of Information Commission, 256 Conn. 764 (2001) (public official privacy interests; job-related public concern)