State v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 04 October 1967 |
| Court | Connecticut Circuit Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Glendon R. MAYO, Director of Licenses and Inspections of the City of Hartford. No CV 14-674-28450. |
Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Hirtle, Jr., and David B. Beizer, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiff (state).
Nataleno A. Coco, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendant.
William J. Kimball is an employee of the state board of registration for professional engineers and land surveyors as well as of the architectural registration board. Both boards are agencies of the state of Connecticut. The city of Hartford maintains a bureau of licenses to which applications are submitted for building permits as required by the General Statutes and, from the general authority flowing therefrom, by additional ordinances of the city of Hartford. In compliance with the aforementioned enactments, applicants for building permits are required to file, together with the application, also plans, specifications, and other related documents as may be required, to aid in determining the granting or denial of the application.
Pursuant to official action taken by the aforementioned state boards, Kimball was directed to inspect applications for building permits, together with their supportive documents, then in the custody of the defendant, Glendon R. Mayo, director of licenses and inspections for the city of Hartford. It is not denied that the purpose of inspection was related to and directly concerned with the basic objectives and purposes of the named state boards. This request to inspect for purposes of the business of the state of Connecticut was denied on the grounds that an ordinance of the city of Hartford, § 39-107.4 of the building code of the city of Hartford, provides that the documents sought to be inspected were not public records.
The state of Connecticut brings this action for relief in behalf of its two subordinate agencies, claiming the right to inspect by virtue of § 1-19 of the General Statutes, more commonly referred to as the 'right to know' statute.
Section 39-107.4 of the building code provides as follows:
Section 1-19 of the General Statutes provides, in its pertinent parts, as follows: '(A)ll records made, maintained, or kept on file by any executive, administrative, legislative, or judicial body, agency, commission or official of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any public regulation, shall be public records and every resident of the state shall have the right to inspect or copy such records at such reasonable time as may be determined by the custodian thereof.' Section 1-20 of the General Statutes authorizes the refusal of permission to inspect or copy such records if such inspection would affect the public security or the financial interests of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or if such denial is necessary to provide reasonable protection to the reputation or character of any person.
The issues arising herein are (1) whether the denial of the plaintiff's request to inspect by the defendant was for just and proper cause, 1 and (2) whether the provisions of § 39-107.4 of the Hartford building code are in violation of chapters 390 and 391 of the General Statutes as they relate to the duties of the architectural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold v. McDermott
...inspection, have been broadly construed. Meriden Record Co. v. Browning, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 633, 637, 294 A.2d 646; State v. Mayo, 4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 511, 515, 236 A.2d 342. The defendant's first assignment of error is that the court erred in concluding that all of the documents and records to whic......
-
Bzozowski v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines
...only defense the regulation here under consideration could enjoy would be its need to protect the general public. State v. Mayo, 4 Conn.Cir. 511, 236 A.2d 342 (Cir.Ct.1967), indicates that Connecticut has a 'right to know' statute not dissimilar from our own. Gen.Stat. § 1--19. That law con......
-
Meriden Record Co. v. Browning
...the request by the petitioners was not for a proper purpose should not be disturbed by the courts.' This court, as in State v. Mayo, 4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 511, 236 A.2d 342, does not construe the protective language of our statutes 'as granting a public body a carte blanche right . . . without sho......