A bill that would add to the kinds of law enforcement records exempt from disclosure under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) will be voted on by the legislature. The bill, which was reworked following feedback at a public hearing, was placed on the consent calendar by the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Security at a March 19 committee meeting following a unanimous vote.
As originally written, SB 234 would add records depicting “a scene of an accident that involves a minor, a victim of domestic or sexual abuse, a victim of homicide or suicide or a deceased victim of an accident” to a list of records created by law enforcement agencies that are exempt from disclosure under FOIA if doing so “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.”
It would also delete the word “signed” from the FOIA exemption for signed witness statements, broadening the exemption.
State agency reaction to the initial bill was split.
The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), which put forward the bill, testified in favor, arguing that the proposal would bring FOIA into alignment with the Police Accountability Act (PAA). They stated that while witness statements are already exempt from disclosure under FOIA, those statements can be captured in camera recordings, which the PAA mandates police wear.
The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association supported the bill on the grounds that it would “help keep sensitive information from being released to the public.” The association’s written testimony also bemoaned the number of FOIA requests they are receiving and the amount of time it takes officers to review and redact footage before being released. They also asked that language noting that nothing in the bill could hinder the duties of the Office of Inspector General, who must review any incident involving deadly force used by an officer and release it within 96 hours, be added.
The Judicial Branch, which submitted testimony neither for nor against the bill, also raised concerns about its language. Their concern was that the “scene of an incident” language, which is not present in statute, could narrow FOIA’s protections for victim privacy.
“We are pleased that the bill expands the types of victims receiving protection from FOI disclosure to include a minor, a victim of domestic or sexual abuse, a victim of suicide, or a deceased victim of an accident. However, the “scene of the accident” language has the reverse effect, eliminating protections at other locations where records could be generated.” said the branch’s written testimony.
The Office of the Victim Advocate also submitted testimony in support of the bill but raised concerns about the “scene of the accident language.”
The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) opposed the initial language in the bill, arguing it was overly broad.
“The proposal, as written, is broad and would open the door to the suppression of all information obtained from witnesses regardless of whether such information is contained within an official, sworn statement. It would allow the redaction of witness statements contained within police reports, or recorded by video or audio (e.g., 911 calls). Such a broad exemption would strike a critical blow to transparency in criminal investigations.” wrote Colleen Murphy, executive director of the FOIC, in testimony on the bill. Murphy also noted that FOIA has an exemption to protect witness identities and called the bill unnecessary. She further stated that the proposed bill had no mechanism to allow for minors or their guardians to consent to the release of records.
The Office of the Public Defender also opposed the bill, noting that while signed witness statements are already exempt under FOIA, the bill would remove the word “signed” to make any witness statements exempt.
“Law enforcement agencies already have significant discretion in determining which public records are exempt under the Freedom of Information Act. Broadening this discretion to include witness statements generally, rather than only signed statements, will undoubtedly result in less transparency while serving no legitimate public safety goal.” Assistant Public Defender Evan Parzych wrote in submitted testimony.
Following the hearing, DESPP and the FOIC met and worked out language that satisfied both parties, according to committee chair Rep. Patrick Boyd (D-Ashford). That language is the basis of the joint favorable substitute bill placed on the consent calendar by the committee. The updated bill language had not been posted at the time of publishing.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
