ARCHIVE 9/24/08: Benoit Wikipedia Hacker: Muchnick Proposes Stipulations to Stamford PD Before FOI Hearing

Benoit Wikipedia Hacker: Muchnick Proposes Stipulations to Stamford PD Before FOI Hearing

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008

As noted earlier, I seem headed for a contested hearing before the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission in my effort to get the Stamford Police Department to release the full videotape of its detective’s June 2007 interrogation of Matthew Greenberg, the “Benoit Wikipedia hacker.” The date for the hearing, which would be held at the commission’s office in Hartford, has not been set.

In anticipation of the hearing, I am seeking, through the commission’s assigned ombudsman, Stamford PD’s agreement on certain undisputed facts. In legalese, these are known as stipulations. Here is my suggested stipulation list:

* Confirmation that I have previously asked respondents’ attorney Toma for the citation of the court case that is expected to be used in their defense, and that the respondents have not replied. (The respondents are not required to disclose this information or to reply to such a request.)

* A list of prior public information requests for videotapes of interviews by Stamford PD, and of the disposition of each of those requests.

*

Confirmation that the interviewee of the subject videotape is the son of Steven Greenberg, an employee of the City of Stamford Department of Finance.

*

That Captain Richard Conklin, when asked by me in our initial conversation about the relationship between Stamford PD and World Wrestling Entertainment, said some department officers worked off-duty private security assignments for WWE.

* A list of Stamford PD personnel who have worked WWE security jobs.

*

That neither Captain Conklin nor Sergeant George Moran, in my first contacts with Stamford PD ascertaining the procedures for obtaining a copy of the subject videotape, made any mention of a possible exemption under Connecticut FOI.

*

That Captain Conklin told me he was reluctant to provide the subject videotape directly because he felt that was a decision for the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office to make. Captain Conklin said that the subject videotape was made as a courtesy for a law enforcement agency in another jurisdiction and he felt that Stamford PD should defer to that other agency on the release.

*

Captain Conklin’s voice message to me on July 7, 2008: “From what I understand, the dupe that we made and sent down south of our video cut off for some reason after some time. But our original is OK. I think they’ve requested a copy of that.”

*

Whether the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office has, in fact, requested a full and faithful copy of the subject videotape to replace the defective copy in its possession. If yes, the date of that request and the status of the fulfillment of that request.

* That Captain Tom Wuennemann, in our telephone conversation in which my request for the subject videotape was denied, said the grounds were that “voluntary statements” were exempt under Connecticut FOI.

Irv Muchnick