Skip to main content
· 2/27/2024

Drumm v. Freedom of Information Commission

Citations

  • 348 Conn. 565

Syllabus

Pursuant to a provision of the Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-210 (b) (3) (D)), records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public that were compiled in connection with the detection or investi- gation of a crime are exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of such records would result in the disclosure of ''information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action . . . .'' The plaintiffs, the town of Madison, its police department, and its chief of police, D, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the Freedom of Information Commission, ordering the disclosure, pursu- ant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), of certain documents contained in the police department's homicide investigation files to the intervening defendant, N, a filmmaker who was the complainant before the commission. The requested documents related to the 2010 homicide of B. Immediately after the homicide, DNA evidence was recovered, but the case went unsolved. In 2013, N and B's son, H, began working on a documentary about B's unsolved homicide. Between 2013 and 2019, H met with members of the police department, including S, three times in an attempt to obtain information about the investigation. During those meetings, H was left with the impression that the police department had classified B's homicide as a cold case. S indicated to H that, although the DNA evidence was sufficient to identify potential suspects, it was inadequate to prosecute any particular individual, and that the police department had had the same prime suspect since one week after the homicide. Nevertheless, D, citing the ongoing investigation, would not permit the police department to cooperate with the documentary project. As a result, N filed an FOIA request with the police department, which denied the request and declined to produce any of the requested docu- ments on the ground that they were not subject to public disclosure pursuant

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy; Elgo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.