The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 1, 
1998, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain 
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of 
hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 1998-230; Mark Reynolds and the 
Norwich Bulletin against Chief, Police Department, City of Willimantic; and Police 
Department, City of Willimantic; Docket #FIC 1998-231; Paul Lewis and Fox 61 News 
against Chief, Police Department, City of Willimantic; and Police Department, City of 
Willimantic; and Docket #FIC 1998-226; Trenton Wright, Jr. v. Chief, Police 
Department, City of Willimantic; and Police Department , City of Willimantic.  The case 
caption has been corrected to reflect the fact that Willimantic is a city, not a town.

	After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and 
conclusions of law are reached:

	1.   The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S.

	2.  By letter dated August 20, 1998, the complainant requested that the 
respondents provide him with “the most current list of sexual offenders registered with 
[the police] department as required under Connecticut General Statutes 54-102r 
(hereinafter “the list”).” 

	3.   The Commission takes administrative notice of the Final Decision in the 
matter of Docket #FIC 1998-226; Trenton Wright, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, City 
of Willimantic; and Police Department , City of Willimantic, and herein incorporates 
such decision, which concludes that the named respondents did not violate the Freedom 
of Information (FOI) Act by denying the complainant access to the list at the time of his 
request.  

	4.   It is found that during a press conference on August 26, 1998, the respondents 
informed the public that the list would be made available to all requesters.  

	5.   By letter dated August 27, 1998, the respondent chief specifically informed 
the complainant that the list was available at the police department.   It is further found 
that such letter was received by the complainant on August 31, 1998.  

	6.   It is found that, during the morning hours of September 1, 1998, the 
complainant was given access to the list at police headquarters but was denied a copy of 
such list.

	7.   Having been so denied a copy of the list, the complainant appealed to the 
Commission by letter dated and filed September 1, 1998, alleging that the respondents 
thereby violated the FOI Act.   The complainant requested that civil penalties be imposed 
upon the respondents.  

	8.   Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part states:

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency…shall be public records and every person shall 
have the right to…receive a copy of such records in 
accordance with the provisions of section 1-15…. 

	9.   Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:

[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly 
upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.  
The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the 
freedom of information act…by all [municipal] public 
agencies…shall not exceed fifty cents per page….

	10.  It is found that, upon becoming aware that the complainant had been denied a 
copy of the list, the respondent chief left a message for the complainant at his home 
informing the complainant that a copy was available for him and that such copy could be 
picked up at the police station.  It is further found that such action took place within a few 
hours of the complainant’s departure from the police department on the morning of 
September 1, 1998.  

	11.  It is found that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the 
respondents’ compliance with the mandates of §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., was prompt.  

	12.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), 
G.S., by their actions in this matter. 

	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 
December 9, 1998.

_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Trenton Wright, Jr.
232 Mansfield Avenue
Willimantic, CT 06226 

Chief of Police, Police 
Department, City of 
Willimantic; and Police 
Department, City of 
Willimantic 
c/o Atty. Richard S. Cody
21 Main Street, PO Box 425
Mystic, CT 06355

__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-248FD/mrb12171998