The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 2012, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

     After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

     1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

     2.  It is found that on January 4, 2012, the complainants requested copies of the pistol permits of applicants whose fingerprint checks were pending.

     3.  It is found that on January 18, 2012, the respondents provided the first of two sets of records to the complainants.  It is found that the respondents provided the second set on February 16, 2012.

     4.  It is found that the respondents redacted the name of each applicant, and claimed that §29-28(d), G.S., protected the information from disclosure.

     5.  By e-mail filed January 20, 2012, the complainants appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide the names of the subject applicants.  The complainants requested the imposition of a civil penalty.

     6.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

          Public records or files means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

     7.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

          Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours…

     8.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”

     9.  It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

     10.  Section 29-28(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

          Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed . . . .

     11.  The Commission has previously concluded, in Docket #FIC 2007-268; MariAn Gail Brown and the Connecticut Post v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; (March 26, 2008), that §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from disclosure the names of applicants for pistol permits: 

          It is concluded that §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure the names and addresses of: persons whose applications are pending; persons whose applications have been approved; persons whose applications were initially denied but later approved on appeal; and persons whose applications were denied but who have pending appeals of such denials.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants.  (Emphasis added.)

     12.  In MariAn Gail Brown and the Connecticut Post, supra, and in Docket #1998-327; Sherman v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (August 25, 1999), the Commission concluded that disclosure of the names of applicants for pistol permits would necessarily reveal the identity of people who would ultimately be issued a permit.

     13.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by redacting the names of applicants for pistol permits from the records they provided to the complainants.

     14.   he Commission notes, however, that §29-28(d), G.S., does not exempt from disclosure the names of people whose applications were denied and who have not appealed such denials.

     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

     1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 14, 2012.

__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Edward Peruta
38 Parish Road
Rocky Hill, CT  06067

Reuben Bradford, Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection;
Thomas Hatfield, Legal Affairs, State of Connecticut,
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services
and Public Protection
c/o Stephen R. Sarnoski, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06105

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2012-032/FD/cac/11/14/2012