FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
James S. Brewer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-327
Bloomfield Police Department,
Respondent June 22, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 15, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed December 2, 1993, and supplemented by a letter filed December 13, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his October 22, 1993 and November 5, 1993 requests for certain records had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainant by letter dated October 22, 1993 requested from the respondent a copy of a certain police report and the tape of a 911 telephone call made by the complainant to the respondent.
4. It is found that the complainant repeated his request by letter dated November 5, 1993.
5. It is found that the requested report and tape are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
6. It is found that the complainant received no response to his requests until after the complaint in this matter had been filed.
7. It is found that the complainant ultimately received a copy of the police report, and an inaudible copy of the tape of the 911 call.
8. It is found that the copy of the 911 tape given to the complainant was itself recorded from a poorly-made microcassette copy of the original tape.
Docket #FIC 93-327 Page 2
9. It is found that the original tape has been re-used by the respondent.
10. At the hearing, the respondent conceded that the complainant was entitled to copies of the requested records, and that the records had not been provided promptly.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide promptly upon request copies of public records.
12. At the hearing, the respondent offered to make the microcassette copy available for the complainant to listen to or copy himself.
13. At the hearing, the complainant maintained that the delay in providing the requested records was deliberate, and requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondent.
14. The respondent in turn maintains that any delay in providing the records was inadvertent.
15. The respondent also maintains that the complainant should have sought alternative means, such as subpoena, to obtain the requested records, if timeliness was important to him.
16. It is found that the requested 911 call and police report concern incidents at a deposition attended by the complainant and others in October of 1993.
17. It is found that the complainant made a 911 call to the respondent because he feared an imminent altercation.
18. It is found that when an officer of the respondent responded to the call, the parties were leaving the deposition room, and no police action was necessary.
19. It is found that the West Hartford corporation counsel, who represented a defendant in the action that was the subject of the deposition, requested from the chief of the respondent a copy of the officer's incident report and a copy of the 911 call.
20. It is found that although the responding officer had not written a report, he then did so at the chief's request.
21. It is found that a copy of the report and the 911 tape were promptly provided to the West Hartford corporation counsel.
22. It is found that the chief of the respondent police department subsequently took personal responsibility for fulfilling the complainant's request in early November of 1993.
Docket #FIC 93-327 Page 3
23. It is found that the chief took responsibility for fulfilling the request because he recognized the complainant, and knew that the same records had been promptly provided to opposing counsel.
24. It is also found that the chief took no action in response to the complainant's request until December 15, 1993, after the complainant filed his complaint in this matter.
25. It is found that the respondent's failure to provide the requested records promptly to the complainant was without reasonable grounds within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The respondent shall forthwith make available to the complainant the microcassette copy of the 911 tape so that the complainant may listen to the tape, make a copy on his own equipment, or both.
3. The respondent shall forthwith remit to the Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $25.00.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 22, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-327 Page 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
James S. Brewer, Esq.
818 Farmington Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06119
Bloomfield Police Department
c/o Marc Needelman, Esq.
11 Mountain Avenue
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission