A video depicting the death of J’Allen Jones at the hands of Department of Correction (DOC) officials, which has been publicly released through a Connecticut Superior Court ruling, is not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure according to a recent ruling from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).
In response to a request seeking a copy of the video from reporters at the Connecticut Examiner, the FOIC ruled that the video was exempt from disclosure under a provision of FOIA that allows the DOC commissioner to block the release of records if they believe doing so would create a safety risk because they contain information, such as the movement of inmates or staff.
During hearings on the complaint, DOC officials testified that because the video depicted security cameras in Garner Correctional Facility, where Jones was incarcerated, as well as the location of doors, and escort and restraint techniques, its release could reveal security vulnerabilities and “result in the risk of escape.” DOC cited the “mosaic theory,” a legal doctrine that has been frequently cited under the national security exemption of the federal Freedom of Information Act following the 9/11 terror attacks, which asserts that disclosure of seemingly unrelated pieces of data can be put together over time to form a picture that risks security.
Hearing officer Zack Hyde wrote in his proposed decision, which the FOIC adopted, that DOC testified disclosure of a series of videos could “create a complete picture of the inside of the facility, which could be studied by someone on the outside and provided to an inmate for the purposes of planning an escape.”
Reporter Ally LeMaster first filed a request for video from the day of Jones’ death in August 2025. Jones died at Garner CI in 2018 after he was struck, pepper-sprayed, and sedated by multiple corrections officers during a transfer between cells. An internal DOC review found that, prior to his death, Jones had been in medical distress for at least seven minutes before corrections staff attempted to provide aid. Jones’ death was ruled a homicide by the Office of the Medical Examiner.
At the time of LeMaster’s request, video from the incident had not been released. Attorney General William Tong’s office represented DOC in a multi-year wrongful death lawsuit led by Jones’ family and fought release of the video. Following a court order, redacted video was released publicly in June 2026.
LeMaster appealed to the FOIC in October 2025 after DOC officials stated in September that they were still working on the request. During hearings on the complaint, DOC argued the videos were exempt under Sec. 1-210(b)(18)(G), which allows the agency commissioner to object to the release of records on the grounds that disclosure creates a security risk.
DOC also stated that they had provided LeMaster the opportunity to “inspect” the requested video, rather than provide them with a copy, which she declined.
In his decision, Hyde noted that the FOIC has deferred to the DOC’s judgment in determining what constitutes a safety risk. Hyde cited a 2008 Superior Court ruling, which overturned an FOIC ruling finding that DOC had failed to prove release of requested records actually posed a security risk.
“The Commission’s role in reviewing the Commissioner of DOC’s safety risk determination under [the statute] is to determine whether ‘the [Commissioner’s] reasons were pretextual and not bona fide, or irrational.'” Hyde wrote in his decision.
LeMaster also argued that because the video has since been released as an exhibit in the Superior Court case against DOC over its role in Jones’ death, the agency should also be required to release the videos through FOIA. However, the FOIC disagreed, noting that FOIA and discovery rights in litigation operate independently of each other.
The public availability of the video through Superior Court order was raised multiple times at the commission’s September 23 meeting, where commissioners voted to adopt Hyde’s decision as written.
“Discovery and FOI may be legally independent processes, but supplying an already-public version cannot rationally create a new security risk.” LeMaster said in a statement asking the commission to modify Hyde’s decision and order the release of the video. “Deference means trusting the Department to identify and redact legitimate security information fairly and reasonably. This proposed decision goes beyond deference. Its reasoning would make virtually all surveillance footage recorded inside correctional institutions functionally unavailable to the public, regardless of whether redaction could eliminate the asserted risk.
Chairman Owen Eagan raised concerns about reliance on DOC’s testimony that the video posed a security risk. Hyde did not order DOC to submit the video for in camera review. Eagan stated he was concerned that DOC had made no effort to redact the video.
Hyde stated that he had not ordered in camera review because the statute does not allow anything related to inmate movements to be released. He also cited the 2008 Superior Court ruling. Commissioner Christopher Hankins noted that the FOIC had been told “in no uncertain terms” that they must defer to experts.
During discussion of the proposed ruling, DOC officials cited the offer to allow LeMaster to review the video as evidence that they had attempted to comply with the request. CT Examiner editor-in-chief Gregory Stroud stated during the September 23 meeting that the paper had sought the video in order to take it to former DOC employees to help better understand what the video depicted and that reviewing a copy of the video would not serve that purpose.
While the commission did ultimately vote to adopt Hyde’s proposed decision, commissioner Kate Farrish voted against the decision, citing compelling public interest in the case.
Stroud told Inside Investigator that CT Examiner expected to lose the case but were still disappointed in the outcome.
Stroud added that their main argument was that the legislature has had decades to release videos depicting the interior from prisons for release and hasn’t.
“To not make any effort to redact –that level of deference seemed a step too far, but not unexpected.” Stroud said.
He said their main argument in the case was that the legislature has had decades to exempt videos depicting the inside of prisons from release and has not and that the FOIC should not take on the role of the legislature but should take seriously the fact that those videos are public records.
“What is a public record if the public can never see it?” Stroud stated.
He said that CT Examiner would push the legislature to affirm videos like those at issue in Jones’ case can and should be released.
“I understand the FOIC doesn’t want to overstep its authority, but that puts it squarely in the lap of legislators to say this is what you believe.” he added.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
