The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 5, 2015, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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)(A), G.S.

     2.  It is found that by letter dated May 8, 2014, the complainant made a request to the respondents for “all information regarding a reward offered in the case regarding the murder of Zoltan Kiss on September 28, 2001,” including “all information regarding the amount of the reward, whether or not the reward was paid out, and, if the reward was paid out in any capacity, who received any or all of the money” and also “any information regarding who may have been considered for receiving this reward, and any information regarding why it was not paid out to any individuals who were considered”  (the “requested records” or sometimes “the records”).

     3.  It is found that by letter dated June 6, 2014, the respondents forwarded to the complainant a letter dated June 5, 2014 from Commissioner Donald DeFronzo which “directed” his own staff “to withhold” the requested records from the complainant because “disclosure of the information concerning the informants may put those individuals at risk of injury” pursuant to §1-210(b)(19), G.S.  Commissioner DeFronzo’s June 5, 2014 letter further explained that his legal staff had consulted with the State’s Attorney for the Fairfield Judicial District who was the prosecuting authority for the three defendants in the criminal cases related to the relevant murder.  Prior to apprehension, one of these defendants “shot an individual” who might “implicate the defendant in the murder.”  Moreover, the defendants may have been involved in a criminal gang, and both family and criminal gang members who are still at large “may have reason to harm anyone involved in the conviction of the defendants.”  Finally, Commissioner DeFronzo’s June 5, 2014 letter noted that “a Superior Court judge issued an order sealing a number of records in this case.”

     4.  By letter dated and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (the “Commission”) on June 10, 2014, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the denial of his May 8, 2014 records request violated the Freedom of Information Act.

     5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., states in relevant part:

     6.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., states in relevant part:

     7.  Section 1-210(d), G.S., states in relevant part:

     8.  Section 54-82t, G.S., states in relevant part:

     9.  It is found that Zoltan Kiss was murdered in Bridgeport on September 28, 2001, and that the governor of Connecticut approved a reward for information concerning the murder on April 10, 2002. Three individuals were subsequently convicted on charges related to the murder (Miguel Zapata, Orema Taft, and Luisa Bermudez).  Many details concerning the circumstances of the murder and the related trade in illegal drugs are set forth in State of Connecticut v. Zapata, 119 Conn. App. 660, 662-669 (2010).

     10. It is found that, C. Robert Satti, Jr., who testified at the Commission’s hearing, was the prosecuting attorney in all three criminal cases.  Based upon his testimony, it is found that Miguel Zapata fired a gunshot at one potential witness after the murder but before he was apprehended in Tennessee.  Moreover, at his trial, Mr. Zapata threatened a different person on the witness stand, stating that she was “a dead bitch.” State of Connecticut v. Zapata, supra at 667.

     11. It is also found that, by order dated May 7, 2008 in the criminal cases against Miguel Zapata, Orema Taft, and Luisa Bermudez, Judge Hauser of the Superior Court sealed the State’s Petition for Determination of Award, the transcript of the hearing on the petition as well as the court’s order concerning the petition.

     12. It is further found, based on the testimony of Attorney Satti, that one or more witnesses were placed, and remain as of the Commission hearing date, in a witness protection program.  However, there was no testimony concerning whether the person or persons in the witness protection program were the same individual or individuals who may have received a reward pursuant to gubernatorial authorization and judicial approval.

     13. It is further found that the three defendants have family, and perhaps gang, members who are still at large and may have reason to harm anyone involved in the conviction of the defendants.

     14. At the Commission hearing, the complainant stated that he would accept requested records with redactions and suggested the desirability of partial disclosures. The respondents continued to claim that the records were exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(19), G.S. (see paragraph 3 above), and also cited §54-82t, G.S.  The respondents countered the complainant’s argument for redacted records, stating that any partial disclosure would elevate the risk to the witnesses who testified at trial.  They argued that it might be surmised that a reward was given to someone who testified.

     15. It is finally found that partial disclosures might escalate interest in the subject of rewards that may have been given in the relevant criminal cases and it is not reasonable to risk potential harm to persons that may result from partial disclosures of the requested records. 
      
     16. It is concluded that the respondent Commissioner did have reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the requested records “may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person”, pursuant to §1-210(b)(19), G.S. These reasonable grounds were established by “a sufficiently detailed record [that] reflect[ed] the reasons why … [the] exemption applies to the materials requested.” Director, Department of Information Technology v. Freedom of Information Commission, 274 Conn. 179, 191-192 (2005).  The respondents satisfied their burden of proof with “more than conclusory language, generalized allegations or mere arguments of counsel.” Id. at 191. See also People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc v. Freedom of Information Commission, pp. 16, 21-22, HHB CV 146023464 S, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain (December 18, 2014).

     17. While there is a strong logical possibility that any person receiving any reward from the state would also be in the witness protection program, because no specific finding of fact is possible in this regard (see paragraph 12 above), no conclusion of law can be established concerning §54-82t(j), G.S., and the requested records.

     18. It is finally concluded that, because the exemption at §1-210(b)(19), G.S., is applicable, the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

     The following orders by the Commission are 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 March 25, 2015.

__________________________
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:

Donald Meehan
267 Orange Street
New Haven, CT  06051

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Administrative Services; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Administrative Services
c/o Jeffrey R. Beckham, Esq.
165 Capitol Avenue, Room 407
Hartford, CT  06106

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-365/FD/cac/3/25/2015