Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foia Privacy Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney General’s staff seek FOIA exemption for home addresses after threats and harassment incidents
Summary
Assistant attorneys general and union representatives urged the committee to exempt home addresses of Office of the Attorney General employees from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, citing repeated threats, stalking and harassment against lawyers who handle sensitive prosecutions and child protection cases.
Employees of the Office of the Attorney General asked the Government Administration and Elections Committee to pass Senate Bill 1433, which would exempt the residential addresses of AG office employees from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Assistant Attorney General Nancy Brule and Joan Andrews, president of the Association of Connecticut Assistant Attorneys General, testified that attorneys and staff in the AG’s office receive threats, stalking and harassment as part of representing the state in sensitive matters — ranging from child protection, criminal prosecutions and corrections litigation to Medicaid fraud and employment cases. Both witnesses said similar protections already exist for judicial employees, prosecutors, CHRO staff and correctional personnel, and they argued the AG’s office should receive the same exemption.
Brule described incidents where employees and their families received targeted threats and where private address information was used to intimidate staff. Joan Andrews referenced a case in which a defendant threatened judges, prosecutors and AG staff with violence; the judge and prosecutor were protected under existing exemptions, but AG staff were not. Both witnesses said the requested change is narrowly tailored to home addresses and would not affect work addresses or public contact information.
Committee members asked for details about the criminal cases mentioned and whether other protections exist; witnesses provided specific transcript quotations from court proceedings and cited existing statute 1‑217, which already exempts certain categories of public officials’ addresses (judges, prosecutors, public defenders and other law‑enforcement personnel) from disclosure. They argued FOIA exemption for AG staff is consistent with public‑safety and personnel‑safety practice for other sensitive public employees.
Ending: Witnesses asked the committee to adopt SB 1433 to align FOIA exemptions for AG staff with protections afforded to other officials who face similar personal risk while performing state work; the committee requested time to review the testimony and supporting materials.
