The city of Bridgeport, as well as the police department and chief of police, recently lost their appeal of a Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) decision ordering them to disclose records related to a murder from the 1990s. It’s the third appeal from an FOIC decision ordering Bridgeport to turn over records in old murder investigations the city has lost since May 2024.

In a January 15, 2025 decision, the New Britain Superior Court dismissed an appeal by Bridgeport, its police chief, and the police department seeking to overturn an FOIC order for the disclosure of records related to the 1994 murder of Erica Corbett to the Innocence Project, a litigation and public policy organization “dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals.”

On July 26, 2022 by Evan Parzych, an attorney with the Connecticut Innocence Project/Post-Conviction Unit requested all records related to the police department’s case investigating Corbett’s murder. The city acknowledged receipt of the request the same day. On August 18, 2022, Parzych filed a complaint with the FOIC because he had not received any responsive records.

Beginning in April 2023, Parzych was provided a link where responsive records could be found, provided on a rolling basis. But at a June 29, 2023 hearing on his FOIC complaint, Parzych stated that Bridgeport had withheld a number of responsive records entirely and improperly redacted others. Bridgeport alleged the records were exempt from disclosure “pursuant to numerous statutes.”

Bridgeport also claimed that Parzych’s objection to the redactions and exemption claims were outside the scope of the complaint. But the FOIC found that implicit in the right to promptly obtain requested records was the right to challenge limitations placed upon it.

The FOIC conducted an in-camera review of the withheld records and found many were exempt from disclosure. However, it also found that several records, which Bridgeport alleged contained the identity of minor witnesses and therefore exempt from disclosure, did not meet that criteria and were not exempt. Similarly, the FOIC found a number of records Bridgeport claimed were exempt because they contained signed witness statements did not actually do so and should not have been withheld.

Because the case was from 1994, an attorney for the city testified that they had reviewed court records and conducted Google searches but were unable to locate the names of some individuals in public records to determine whether they were publicly known. Under FOIA, law enforcement records that identify witnesses or informants whose identities are not otherwise publicly known are exempt from disclosure.

The FOIC’s decision in the case noted that, due to the passage of time, there was “apparently a lack of institutional knowledge in the present-day respondent police department with respect to the individuals identified, or potentially identified in the in camera records.” The commission found, however, that the attorney did not establish that the identified individuals were not otherwise known and that failure to turn over those records did not meet the statutory exemption.

The FOIC further found a number of other records that did not meet the exemptions Bridgeport was claiming applied, including for investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the public, records that disclose the name or address of a victim of sexual assault, and for preliminary drafts.

The FOIC determined the city’s response violated the promptness provision of FOIA, and ordered the city to provide an unredacted copy of records they had identified that did not meet the claimed exemptions within 30 days of their finding, which was issued on August 9, 2023.

Bridgeport then appealed the decision. They argued that the FOIC’s finding that they violated the promptness provision of FOIA was not supported by substantial evidence.

The court found that it was “undisputed” that when Bridgeport received the request they had already collected the responsive records for a separate legal matter and that the request applied to a thirty-year-old case but did not begin producing records for nine months. They also noted that the city assigned one person to conducting a review of the responsive records.

“Failing to devote sufficient resources to carry out a statutory duty is not a justification for failing to fulfill that statutory duty, or for failing to provide a prompt response under the act.” the court wrote. They found there was “substantial evidence” supporting the FOIC’s finding that the city had not acted promptly.

Bridgeport further argued that disclosure of the records the FOIC ordered them to turn over would endanger witnesses, but the court also wasn’t persuaded by the city’s argument. They found there was no evidence in the record to suggest anyone in the city had attempted to locate or contact any witnesses and that the attorney who reviewed the records “did not testify that she considered the very practical fact that approximately 30 years had passed since the original investigation into Ms. Corbett’s murder and how that fact might affect any possible threats a witness might face.” They further found there was no direct evidence in the record to support the idea that any witnesses were or had ever been subject to threats.

The court also addressed Bridgeport’s argument that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to address the scope of Bridgeport’s claimed exemptions because Parzych did not address which exemptions he was disputing in his appeal. This is an argument Bridgeport has previously made that the courts have rejected. The court cited a previous ruling rejecting this argument, finding that the city bore the burden of proving the records they were claiming were exempt met the conditions of the exemptions and the requester had “no obligation to amend his complaint to allege that [Bridgeport] violated the act by redacting portions of the responsive records, as such a claim is encompassed with the allegation that [Bridgeport] failed to comply with his request for all responsive records.”

The court also noted it had issued decisions against Bridgeport in two nearly identical cases and that the appellate court issued a controlling opinion for similar issues in another FOIC finding against the city in 2023. It wrote that it was dismissing the appeal in the current case “for many of the same reasons previously set forth” in those cases.

Bridgeport has been the focus of a number of FOIC complaints and court cases in recent years, losing not only multiple court cases but also receiving multiple fines from the FOIC for its failure to properly handle FOIA requests.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.