FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Walter P. Doolittle,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-41
Colonel Lester J. Forst,
Commanding Officer and Central District Major Crime Squad, State of Connecticut
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police and State of Connecticut
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,
Respondents May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on March 17, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared,
stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint.
After consideration of the entire matter, the following
facts are found:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated January 8, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondents for
copies of reports concerning 15 complaints filed by the complainant.
3. On or
about January 27, 1988 the respondent commanding officer provided the
complainant with copies of 3 investigative reports, stating that such reports
were all his department had relative to the complainant's complaints.
4. By letter
of complaint dated February 5, 1988 and filed with the Commission on February
8, 1988 the complainant alleged he had been denied access to records by the
respondents. The complainant requested
the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $500.
5. It is
found that of the 15 complaints filed by the complainant, only 3 resulted in
the production of investigative reports.
Docket #FIC 88-41 Page
Two
6. The
complainant claims that the respondents are required to investigate each
complaint submitted and that each such investigation should have resulted in a
report.
7. It is
found, however, that this Commission lacks jurisdiction over the actions of the
respondents regarding the production of investigative reports. The failure to produce such reports did not
violate any provision of the Freedom of Information Act.
8. It is
further found that the respondents did not deny the complainant access to
public records within the meaning of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission