State v. Anonymous

• Decision Date: 02 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 15229,15229
• Citation: 680 A.2d 956,237 Conn. 501
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS.

Page 956

680 A.2d 956

237 Conn. 501

STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS.

No. 15229.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 16, 1996.

Decided July 2, 1996.

Elliot B. Spector, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher G. Arciero, West Hartford, for appellant (town of Farmington).

Jon L. Schoenhorn, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.

BORDEN, Associate Justice.

The dispositive issues in this certified appeal are whether, under the circumstances of this case, the appellant, the town of Farmington (town): (1) has standing to maintain this action; and (2) is required to honor the defendant's request for the destruction of certain records pursuant to General Statutes § 54-142a, ¹ Connecticut's criminal records erasure statute. The town appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that the town did not fall within an exception to the nondisclosure provisions of the erasure statute and that the defendant was entitled to have the records destroyed. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the town is entitled to a limited disclosure of the records and is not required to destroy them. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. On March 31, 1993, members of the Farmington police department, acting pursuant to an arrest warrant, arrested the defendant, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Anonymous," and charged him with attempted larceny in the first degree by extortion in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49, 53a-119(5)(E) and 53a-122. The charges were dismissed on June 17, 1993. On July 8, 1993, the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 7-465 and 7- 101a, ² sent notice to the town, its police department and Detective Arthur Felie, of his intention to bring an action for damages for false arrest. The notice alleged that the Farmington police had been able to obtain the judge's signature on the arrest warrant only by omitting material facts from the warrant, and that the police had known, or should have known, that the information in the warrant affidavit was insufficient to obtain a warrant.

On July 27, 1993, the defendant sent a letter to the records division of the Farmington police department, requesting that all evidence of his arrest, including photographs, negatives, fingerprint cards and police reports, be turned over to him. On August 19, 1993, in response to a letter from the police department stating that the records had been "erased," the defendant sent another letter to the police department, this time requesting that all records of his arrest physically be destroyed. Thereafter, counsel for the town and the defendant exchanged a series of letters concerning the interpretation of Connecticut's erasure statute and whether, as the town contended, that statute could be satisfied by sealing the files relating to the defendant's arrest and segregating them from other files, or whether, as the defendant argued, the statute required the actual physical destruction of the records.

Dissatisfied with the town's assurance that the records of his arrest would be segregated in order to prevent their disclosure, the defendant, on October 26, 1993, filed a motion in the trial court to compel destruction of the records. The defendant did not send the town a copy of his motion. After the trial court, in the town's absence, ordered the records destroyed, the town, on November 9, 1993, filed a motion requesting that the trial court vacate its earlier ruling and permit the town access to the records for the limited purpose of defending against the civil action threatened by the defendant. The trial court granted the town's motion on November 12, 1993, and denied the defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court claiming that: (1) the town lacked standing because it was not a party to the underlying criminal action, had not filed a motion to intervene, and was not aggrieved; and (2) the trial court improperly determined that the notice of intention to institute a civil action sent by the defendant to the town constituted sufficient ground to order disclosure of the arrest records pursuant to § 54-142a(f). See footnote 1. The Appellate Court concluded that the town had standing to maintain this action but also concluded, with one judge dissenting, that the town was not entitled to disclosure of the records, and that the defendant was entitled to have the records of his arrest physically destroyed. State v. Anonymous, 37 Conn.App. 62, 654 A.2d 1241 (1995). This certified appeal by the town followed. ³

I

The defendant has renewed his challenge to the town's standing. Because standing implicates a court's subject matter jurisdiction and may be raised at any point in judicial proceedings; Stamford Hospital v. Vega, 236 Conn. 646, 656, 674 A.2d 821 (1996); we must address that issue before considering the merits of the town's appeal. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the town had standing to file its November 9, 1993 motion requesting that the trial court vacate its ruling that the defendant's arrest records be destroyed. He argues that the underlying action in this case is the criminal proceeding against him, in which the town was not a party, did not file a motion to intervene, and was not aggrieved. The trial court, he argues, was therefore without subject matter jurisdiction to decide the town's motion. We disagree.

"Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless [one] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action.... If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tomlinson v. Board of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 717, 629 A.2d 333 (1993). "Standing is not a technical rule intended to keep aggrieved parties out of court.... Rather it is a practical concept designed to ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented.... The requirements of justiciability and controversy are ordinarily held to have been met when a complainant makes a colorable claim of direct injury he has suffered or is likely to suffer...." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gay & Lesbian Law Students Assn. v. Board of Trustees, 236 Conn. 453, 463-64, 673 A.2d 484 (1996).

It is true, as the defendant argues, that the town was not a party to the dismissed criminal action and did not file a motion to intervene. The town, however, after being notified of the defendant's intention to institute an action against it and its employees, had an interest in the outcome of the defendant's request for an order requiring the destruction of the records that would likely be needed for defense of the threatened civil action. Styled as a proceeding in a no longer existing criminal case, the defendant's motion specifically named town employees as parties to be subject to any order to destroy records, but did not provide notice to the town. ⁴ The defendant's request arguably could have been brought in the form of a mandamus action to compel police officials to destroy the records. Because the defendant chose not to bring such an action, the town, which had a colorable claim for disclosure of the records pursuant to § 54-142a(f), was put in the position of filing a motion for such disclosure in the context of a motion to vacate the order to destroy the records. Denying the town standing to file such a motion would elevate form over substance. Having been permitted to file his motion for destruction of the records without providing notice to the town, the only other party with a real interest in the outcome of the trial court's decision, the defendant has no legitimate cause to complain that the trial court then permitted the town to challenge its decision.

II

We turn next to the certified question. We note as a threshold matter that the question certified; see footnote 4; could have been more aptly phrased. It is evident that § 54-142a(a), which provides for the automatic erasure of police records upon the expiration of the time to file an appeal from a dismissed criminal case, is applicable here. The question decided by the Appellate Court and briefed by the parties was not whether to allow erasure of the records, but, rather, whether the town was entitled to disclosure of information in such erased records pursuant to § 54-142a(f), or whether, instead, the records were physically to be destroyed pursuant to § 54-142a(e). We therefore rephrase the certified question as follows: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the town was not entitled to disclosure of the police records of the defendant's arrest; and (2) the defendant was entitled to have the records of his arrest physically destroyed?" ⁵

The town claims that the Appellate Court improperly determined that it was not a defendant in an action for false arrest and was not, therefore, entitled to disclosure of the records pursuant to § 54-142a(f). Although the town acknowledges that notice of an intent to file an action is not the equivalent of bringing an action, the town argues that it should nonetheless fall within the § 54-142a(f) exception to nondisclosure of erased records because to hold otherwise would lead to harsh and irrational results that were not intended by the legislature. The town further argues that permitting the defendant to have the records destroyed would hinder the town's efforts...