Connecticut can't charge newspaper $20 million for database

By The Associated Press

07.23.02

Printer-friendly page

HARTFORD, Conn. — The Department of Public Safety cannot charge the Hartford Courant $20 million for a copy of the state's criminal convictions database, a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled July 17.

The newspaper asked for the database in 1999. The 815,000 files in the database detail the names, dates of birth, addresses and criminal histories of those who have violated Connecticut law.

Public safety officials had calculated the $20 million price based on a state statute that allows police to charge $25 to search for an individual file.

That decision was upheld by the state Freedom of Information Commission and, later, by a state Superior Court judge.

But the high court overturned those rulings, saying charging $25 for every file in the electronic database would undercut the spirit of the FOI law.

"That would have the practical effect of denying the plaintiff access to records that, by statute, must be made available to the public," wrote Justice Christine Vertefeuille.

The Supreme Court did not set a price for the database, but said the department can charge only what it costs to compile the public information and make it available.

"In this particular case, we're not sorry that we lost," said Victor Perpetua, appellate attorney for the Freedom of Information Commission. "The commission thought that the Hartford Courant should be able to get the database information they wanted at a reasonable cost, but thought the state statute said otherwise."

The Department of Public Safety will have to remove juvenile records and other non-disclosable information before they can provide the database to the newspaper.

The state has repeatedly argued that the Courant's request requires the department to create a separate document. It could require the agency to hire an independent company to remove the confidential information, the department said.

The Courant has said it would pay for the creation of a computer program that would filter out that information.

"Clearly, it was not creating a new document, it was just putting in a different format the information the agency already had," said Ralph G. Elliot, the newspaper's lawyer. "That was an important precedent to establish."

The state had argued that laws dictating what each agency can charge for public information superseded FOI law.

"Our position is that this is outside the Freedom of Information Act, and the Freedom of Information Act does not have jurisdiction," Assistant Attorney General Matthew B. Beizer said in oral arguments before the high court Jan. 18.

Elliot said the Courant will contact the Department of Public Safety and discuss obtaining the records, but no timeline had been discussed. He could not say how much the newspaper expects to spend.