You asked for the legislative history of CGS § 1-217, which prohibits public agencies from disclosing residential addresses of certain public officials and employees. You also wanted to know if the list of people whose addresses are protected has increased in recent years and how other New England States handle this situation.

SUMMARY

The Connecticut General Assembly passed the residential address protection law (CGS 1-217) in 1995. The law prohibits public agencies from disclosing the addresses of certain public officials and employees. When first passed, the law was called the hazardous duty statute because the officials and employees whose addresses were protected were viewed as the most “at-risk” for harm if their residential addresses were made available to the public. The protected officials and employees were judges, magistrates, police officers, Department of Correction employees, and past and present state prosecutors and public defenders.

The impetus for the legislation appears to have been shock over the release of the names of all correction officers to a then-recently released inmate who made a Freedom of Information request for the employees’ names and addresses.

In the almost 10 years since the law first passed, the list of people whose addresses are protected has doubled.

Massachusetts appears to be the only other New England state that specifically prohibits the disclosure of certain officials’ and employees’ addresses. Rhode Island and Vermont statutes that prohibit the disclosure of personally identifiable or security information, respectively, may also prohibit the disclosure of residential addresses.

ADDRESS PROTECTION LAW

With one exception, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) prohibits state and local government agencies from disclosing to the public the home addresses of certain specified local, state, and federal officials and employees (CGS § 1-217). The prohibition does not apply to personal information, including home addresses, in Department of Motor Vehicles records, which are disclosable to government agencies and anyone else who agrees to use them for limited specified purposes, such as to provide notice to owners of towed, abandoned, or impounded cars; by insurers in connection with a claim; or in connection with any lawful purpose of a labor organization (CGS § 14-10).

To avail themselves of the protection under the FOIA, covered employees only need to substitute their business address on any state or local government document that asks for their home address. Prior to 1999 and the passage of PA 99-77, covered employees who sought to have their home addresses protected from disclosure were required to submit a request for nondisclosure and their business address to the executive head of the potentially disclosing department, agency, board, council, commission, or institution.

Following is the list of covered employees, including the date for all additions after 1995.

1. federal and state judges, federal magistrates, and state family support magistrates;

2. state and local police officers;

3. past and present state prosecutors or public defenders;

4. Department of Correction, Department of Children and Families (1999), and Judicial (2001) employees;

5. Division of Criminal Justice inspectors (1996);

6. firefighters (1997);

7. Pardon and Parole Board members (1999);

8. Public Defender Services Division social workers (2001); and

9. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities members and employees (2002).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Government Administration and Elections Committee held a hearing on the original address protection bill (HB 6290) in 1995. Deborah Fuller, Judicial Department, and several union representatives, Michael Ferrucci Jr. (AFSCME), David McCluskey (State Police), and Dennis O’Neill (AFSCME) testified in support of the bill. Judicial testified in favor of prohibiting judges’ home addresses.

According to their testimony, the bill was necessary to protect the home addresses of officials and employees at risk of harm by members of the public. Many referred to the then-recent release of the names of all correction officers to a released prison inmate who made a freedom of information request.

Mitchell Pearlman, Freedom of Information Commission’s executive director and general counsel, argued that the bill was unnecessary because the law already prohibited the disclosure of information that if released would constitute an invasion of privacy. Pearlman testified that the commission used this exemption to prevent the inmate from receiving the correction officers’ addresses.

NEW ENGLAND STATES WITH ADDRESS PROTECTION LAWS

Massachusetts

Massachusetts statutes prohibit employers, the public employee retirement administration commission, and any retirement board from disclosing the home address and telephone number of personnel in the unelected general court; law enforcement; judicial; prosecutorial; departments of Youth Services, Social Services, and Correction; and any

other public safety and criminal justice system. The agencies may, however, disclose these addresses and telephone numbers to an employee organization, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees, or a criminal justice agency.

Additionally, the home address and telephone number or place of employment or education of crime victims, victims of domestic violence, and family planning services trainers or providers are not public records and cannot be disclosed by a government agency that maintains records identifying them (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. § 66-10 (d)).

Rhode Island

The law exempts from disclosure all records that identify employees (R. I. Gen. Laws 38-2-2 (4)(A)).

Vermont

Under Vermont law, passwords, access codes, user identification, and similar information that if disclosed would threaten individual safety are not public records that are subject to disclosure (VSA § 1-317 (25)).

SNE: dw