Page 40 - CLT022420

40 ¦ FEBRUARY 24, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of “cell tower analysis” performed in the in-
of material fact, the court granted Aramark’s vestigation of criminal activity. Complainant,
motion for summary judgment. a state inmate, requested that respondent pro-
vide him with records of “call tower analysis”
pertaining to two telephone numbers. Respon-
REAL ESTATE dents refused, contending the records were

Plaintiff’s Appeal from Zoning Board exempt from disclosure as law enforcement
Decision Dismissed agency records compiled in connection with
the detection or investigation of crime, the
disclosure of which would reveal investigative
CASE: Lucarelli v. Town of Winchester Zoning Bd. techniques not otherwise known to the general
COURT: Litchfield J. D. at Torrington public. Complainant appealed to the commis-
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6017987-S sion. After reviewing the records in camera, the
COURT OPINION BY: Pickard commission agreed that the records were law
DATE: January 28, 2020 • PAGES: 7 enforcement agency records compiled in con-
nection with the detection or investigation of
Plaintiffs applied for a zoning permit to convert crime. The commission rejected respondents’
the 500 square foot second floor of their build- assertion, however, that the records revealed
ing to a habitable area. This would increase the investigative techniques not otherwise known
living space to 1000 square feet. The Zoning En- to the public. The commission took notice
forcement Officer denied the application. Plain- of the fact that the use of cell phone and cell
tiffs appealed and the Zoning Board of Appeals tower data in the investigation of crime is not
upheld the decision. Plaintiffs appealed to the an investigatory technique of which the public
court and the court dismissed the appeal. The is unaware. The commission found further that
plaintiffs argued that their application would not the records at issue here did not contain any
expand the footprint of the building or increase details of the investigatory uses of cell phone
the height of the existing building. Plaintiffs and cell tower data beyond general information
also asserted no work would be done outside the otherwise available to the public. Respondents
building. Defendants conceded that plaintiffs accordingly violated the FOI Act by refusing to
satisfied certain regulations. They instead argued disclose the records to complainant. The com-
that a 1992 variance requiring that a structure mission ordered respondents to provide the re-
have a maximum footage of 500 square feet can- quested records to complaint forthwith and free
not be voided. The court found that plaintiffs of charge, redacted as appropriate to remove
must abide by that condition unless the variance any information any narrative information not
is modified by the Zoning Board. Therefore, the sought by complainant.
court dismissed the appeal.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION U.S. DISTRICT COURT
COMMISSION

LABOR LAW

PUBLIC RECORDS Court Grants Summary Judgment In

Records of “Cell Tower Analysis” Do ADA Claim Where Plaintiff Failed To
not Reveal Investigative Technique Not Show Reasonable Accommodation
Otherwise Known to General Public Available

CASE: Tyus v. Reichard CASE: Wang v. HP, Inc.
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission
DOC. NO.: FIC 2019-0108 COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-2096
COURT OPINION BY: Cynthia A. Cannata COURT OPINION BY: Arterton
DATE: January 08, 2020 • PAGES: 4
DATE: February 11, 2020 • PAGES: 21
The Freedom of Information Commission sus- Plaintiff worked in market development sales
tained a complaint, finding that respondents for HP, which required him to travel frequent-
violated the FOI Act by withholding records ly and attend trade shows. During one show

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune