FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Martin Conroy,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-235

 

Wethersfield Police Department,

 

                        Respondent                  April 26, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 14, 1995, 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 with this Commission on July 19, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to provide to him copies of public records.

 

            3.  The complainant claims that he received a response from the respondent for records of a certain complaint on August 24, 1994, two months after his June 30, 1994 request for such.  He also claims that because the investigative file on the matter was still open between the dates of April 26, 1994 and August 24, 1994, more records must have been created in that period of time. 

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent never received a copy of the June 30, 1994 letter of request by the complainant.

 

            5.  It is also found that on or about August 23, 1994, the respondent learned through correspondence from this Commission that the complainant still sought records from the respondent and that a hearing was to be scheduled on the matter.

 

            6.  It is found that on or about August 24, 1994, the respondent inquired into the status of the records sought by the complainant, closed the investigatory file, and notified the complainant of the availability of the sought records.

 

Docket #FIC 94-235                           Page 2

 

            7.  Although the complainant claims that it is not reasonable for no records to have been created in the interim period of April 20 to August 4, 1994, it is found that in fact the respondent created no records responsive to the complainant's request in that period.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the respondent promptly complied with the complainant's request when the respondent finally received actual notice of the request in August, 1994, and that the respondent did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act in June or July, 1994 under the facts of this case.

 

            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 April 26, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-235                           Page 3

 

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:

MARTIN CONROY

c/o Brian James Conroy, Esq.

1415 Main Street

Suite 804

Worcester, MA 01603

 

WETHERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Richard F. Clemens, Jr.

Lieutenant

505 Silas Deane Highway

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission