Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission
Decision Date | 15 January 2002 |
Docket Number | (SC 16598) |
Citation | 259 Conn. 45,787 A.2d 530 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | PAMELA DAVIS v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. |
Borden, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.
John H. Barton, associate city attorney, for the appellant (plaintiff). Victor R. Perpetua, appellate attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mitchell W. Pearlman, general counsel, for the appellee (named defendant).
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Pamela Davis, the tax assessor of the city of Bridgeport, from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from an order of the named defendant, the freedom of information commission (commission).1 The commission had ordered the plaintiff to provide the complainant, Barbara Brennan, with access to the city's motor vehicle grand lists for 1997 and 1998, and to comply strictly with the provisions of General Statutes § 1-210 (a),2 formerly §1-19 (a).
The plaintiff claims that the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act; 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.;3 and General Statutes §§ 14-10,4 14-50a and 14-163, bar the disclosure of the motor vehicle grand lists in question. The plaintiff also claims that the grand lists are exempt from the public disclosure otherwise mandated by General Statutes § 12-55 (a)5 because "the phrase [in § 12-55 (a)] `except as otherwise specially provided by law' would encompass the enactment of the Federal [Drivers Privacy Protection Act], as well as the subsequent revision to ... § 14-10 creating the Connecticut privacy exemption."
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court's concise and well reasoned memorandum of decision. Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 47 Conn. Sup. 309, 790 A.2d 1188 (2001). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses all arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Kaluszka v. East Hartford, 60 Conn. App. 749, 752, 760 A.2d 1269 (2000).
The judgment is affirmed.
1. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and General Statues § 51-199 (c).
2. General Statutes § 1-210 (a) provides:
3. Title 18 of the United States Code, § 2721 (1994 & Sup. 1999), provides: "Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records "(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), a State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor, thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comm'r of Pub. Safety v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n Tax Assessor of The Town of North Stonington v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n Judicial Branch v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n Afscme, s. 18617
...and concluding that, under Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 47 Conn.Supp. 309, 790 A.2d 1188 (2001), aff'd, 259 Conn. 45, 787 A.2d 530 (2002) (per curiam), General Statutes § 12–55(a) does not permit redactions or omissions from the grand list that the assessor is required to lod......
- Gartrell v. Dept. of Correction
-
Whitaker v. Appriss, Inc.
...Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2001); Davis v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 47 Conn. Supp. 309, 790 A.2d 1188 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001) aff'd, 259 Conn. 45, 787 A.2d 530 (2002); New Richmond News v. City of Richmond, No. 13-CV-163 (St. Croix, Wisc. Cir. Ct., Mar. 20, 2014) (See Appriss's Notice of Supplementa......
-
Comm'r of Pubilc Safety v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n—concurrence
...403, 190 A. 264 (1937); Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 47 Conn. Sup. 309, 310, 790 A.2d 1188 (2001), aff'd, 259 Conn. 45, 787 A.2d 530 (2002) (per curiam). Purely by way of background, I begin, however, with the case law relied upon by the trial court and the commission. In Gol......