Public officials in Connecticut are in an uproar over a recent state supreme court decision that requires the addresses of police officers, corrections officers and firefighters to be redacted from publically accessible motor vehicle tax lists. The decision has implications for virtually every type of list that a municipality may keep, from voter registrations to dog licenses.
At issue is a Connecticut law, Conn. General Statutes § 1-217, that prohibits public entities from disclosing the home addresses of various federal, state and local officials, including firefighters. The case began when attorney Peter Sachs filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the “grand list of motor vehicles” from the town of North Stonington. Some states refer to such a request by other names, such as open records request, public records request, or sunshine request.
The town provided Sachs with the list requested, but with 40 addresses redacted. The redacted addresses included a judge, state police officers, and corrections employees. Sachs appealed to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission seeking all of the addresses. The case took three years to work its way through the administrative appeals process, and then court system until June 28, 2011, when the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the town concluding that local officials must redact the required information. Here is a copy of the statute. Here is a copy of the decision. Conn_FOI_Case.
The problem now is how can a municipality possibly comply fully with the requirements of § 1-217? It is one thing for a municipality to redact the addresses its own police officers and firefighters who are known to fall under one of the 12 categories of exempt employees. But what about firefighters who live in the town but work in a different community? How can a municipality possibly keep track of the occupations of so many different citizens?
Joyce Mascena, president of the town clerks association, posed another puzzling aspect to the law: “If we have to remove the addresses from land records, then how would title searchers be able to do their jobs?”
For his part, Sachs is not finished. He has sent ten different communities a FOI request to test their compliance with the court’s ruling and is waiting for their response. He was quoted as saying “My point is to show that this is a state statute that, as it stands right now, can’t be complied with.”
When our town, North Stonington, CT, decided to put our land records on line for tax purposes, I informed the accessor of this statute. They were not aware of the law and were going to proceed with the on line service. A few days later the Tax accessor called and apologized. They rushed to become compliant. At first they contacted the departments and agencies effected asking for the names of their residents. Obviously they were met with resistance. Instead the departments and agencies told those concerned to contact the town. This was very effective in meeting the requirements.
On the police side of this issue, most officers are made aware of this statute and advised to notify the town that they live in. Our state also allows police officers to use their department address for the purpose of License and Motor Vehicle, which creates another issue of taxing.
DO I think that it is a worth while law? Just ask my son, While working an attempted homicide case, i received credible threats against my son. We had troopers sitting on my house and rather than having him attend school under police escort, he had to miss school. It seems that High school is hard enough without a Trooper standing next to you. It was a trying time for my family. One that I would not wish on anyone, but unfortunately does occur.
I know of the argument that in today’s information society, no one is truly hidden, and if someone wants to find you, they can. But crime prevention is about reducing opportunity. This law reduces the opportunity.
John John John… why am I not suprised you were involved in this case. Weren’t you involved in the great border dispute between the State of Connecticut and the State of Rhode Island as well?
I agree, the law still makes sense – they just need to better define who has the responsibility for identifying the applicable individuals. If the law put the onus on the officer, firefighter or judge to request the address be omitted (as you did) that should address the biggest concerns.
The land evidence records and UUC filings is another story. Real estate is usually described by plat and lot – but cross indexed by address. That could create a nightmare for title examiners… the type of thing that would get worse with age…. the longer it goes on. Imagine 25 years from now someone running a title and the ownership record goes blank for several years….
Too bad they can’t protect the privacy of regular residents of the state too. You are penalized if you own a home in the state of Connecticut because your name and home address is online for all to see. You cannot request that your privacy be protected from crooks who make their living off of websites that peddle personal information for profit because the town (and state) don’t care about privacy or safety for regular citizens of the state.