Page 37 - CLT072720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 27, 2020 ¦ 37

to how and to whom the escrowed funds were Complainant requested that respondents pro-
released, defendant offered no evidence to sup- vide him an opportunity to inspect or obtain
port the truth of her statement that the funds copies of all records pertaining to the enforce-
were released illegally prior to the closing on her ment procedures described in §231.9(B) of the
home. The court accordingly denied defendant’s City of Stamford’s Code of Ordinances, which
special motion to dismiss. section pertains to the impounding of vehicles.
When respondents allegedly failed to comply
with complainants’ request, he appealed to the
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION commission. At hearing, complainant asserted

COMMISSION that respondents failed to provide him with a
written description of the traffic and parking
enforcement procedures that the city’s police
and traffic enforcement officers are expected to
PUBLIC RECORDS follow. Respondents explained that they pro-

Police Investigative File Exempt From vided complainant with all available materials
that were relevant to his request, but the writ-
Disclosure ten enforcement procedure he described was not
a document in their possession. Respondents
CASE: Fritz Aguiar v. Town of Wallingford Police Chief were not aware of any such written procedure.
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission
DOC. NO.: FIC 2019-0348 Finding that respondents do not maintain any
COURT OPINION BY: Freedom of Information Commission records responsive to complainant’s request, the
DATE: July 08, 2020 • PAGES: 7 commission dismissed his complaint.

The Freedom of Information Commission dis- U.S. DISTRICT COURT
missed a complaint, finding that the records re-
quested by complainants were exempt from dis-
closure. Complainants requested access to a police
department case file. Respondents denied the re-
quest, citing G.S. §1-210(b)(3). The case file per- CIVIL PROCEDURE

tained to 12-year old Doreen Vincent, who was re- Court Rejected Defendant’s Notice
ported missing in 1988 and whose disappearance Of Removal For Being Untimely,
remains unresolved. Complainants appealed to
the commission. After in camera inspection of the
file, the commission concluded that it contained Remanded The Case To The Superior
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) re- Court
cords, which are exempt from disclosure under
§1-210(b)(3). The remaining records were exempt CASE: State of Connecticut v. Jumpp
from disclosure under §1-210(b)(3)(D), as records COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00937
compiled in connection with the investigation or COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
detection of crime, the disclosure of which would DATE: July 13, 2020 • PAGES: 4
not be in the public interest due to possibility that Defendant has a pending a criminal case in the
their disclosure might prejudice prospective law Connecticut Superior Court. He filed a notice
enforcement action. The commission accordingly of removal seeking to remove his prosecution
dismissed the complaint. to federal court, alleging that the state violated
his constitutional rights. The court mandated
Respondents Do Not Possess Records summary remand. The court found defendant’s
Sought by Complainant motion untimely. Defendant was charged in his
criminal complaint almost two years ago. The
removal statute requires that the notice of re-
CASE: Olson v. Office of Legal Affairs, City of Stamford moval be filed not later than 30 days after ar-
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission
DOC. NO.: FIC 2019-0581 raignment or at any time before trial, whichever
COURT OPINION BY: Freedom of Information Commission is earlier. Therefore, defendant’s notice of re-
DATE: June 24, 2020 • PAGES: 4 moval is untimely. The court also rejected de-
The Freedom of Information Commission dis- fendant’s allegation that his right to a speedy
missed a complaint, finding that respondents do trial was violated because he has been incarcer-
not possess the records sought by complainant. ated pending trial for almost two years.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune