FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Dorian Davis, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-084 | ||
|
Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, MacDougall Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, |
|||
| Respondents | September 25, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 18, 2002, 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 record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter and “Department of Correction [DOC] Application For Freedom of Information Act” form dated February 5, 2002 and sent to a DOC records specialist at MacDougall Correctional Institution, the complainant made a request to the respondents for the following:
a. “information that I gave to an intelligence officer at Osborne CI in 1997, concerning an inmate that was incarcerated there who had molested me when I was a minor….”
b. “P.S.I. [pre-sentence investigation] report”; and
c. “Any information about a person’s emotional condition or history, family or personal relationships, reputation or character which because of name, indentifying [sic] number, mark or description can be readily associated with a particular person. Security comments, criminal history information & non conviction information is also requested.”
As indicated on the form, the complainant also requested the information pursuant to the Connecticut Personal Data Act, §4-190, G.S., et seq.
3. It is found that by letter dated February 25, 2002, and filed on February 27, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his February 5, 2002 records request. The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty.
4. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, 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 1-212.”
5. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record ….”
6. It is found that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. It is found that by letter addressed to the complainant dated March 27, 2002, the respondents responded to the complainant’s request by informing him:
a. “PSI Report. You requested a copy of your Presentence Investigation (PSI) Report; however, pursuant to the Connecticut Practice Book, Section 43-9, the contents of any PSI are not considered public records and are, therefore, not discloseable [sic] under FOI. You are encouraged to apply directly to the adjudicating court or the arresting Police Department with your FOI request.”
b. “Police Report. Regarding the police report you seek concerning the individual who molested you in 1987, in which you indicated to CCS O’Neill you were about 15 years old, please be advised we do not have this report. You (or a member of your family) should make your request directly to the Hartford Police Department, Attn: Records Division, 50 Jennings Road, Hartford, CT 06120.”
c. “DOC Report. You indicated to CCS O’Neill that you wanted to see “any and all” reports concerning a meeting you had with an “Intelligence Officer” at “Somers”, now
(Osborn C.I.) in 1997. You were unable to recall the name of the Intelligence Officer, whether an Incident Report was written, the specific month when this conversation took place, or the name of any DOC witness to your conversation. If you can recall the name of the Intelligence Officer, I would be happy to pursue this specific request with the Osborn C.I. FOI Coordinator.”
8. It is found that, by letter to the complainant dated April 24, 2002, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the record described in paragraph 2.a, above.
9. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.c, above, it is found that such request is unclear and imprecise. It is further found that the respondents sought clarification from the complainant with respect to such request.
10. It is found that the complainant did not provide any clarification to the respondents with respect to the request described in paragraph 2.c, above.
11. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, it is found that the respondents do not keep on file or maintain records described therein. It is further found that the respondents made a good faith effort to inform the complainant about obtaining access to those requested records that are not in their possession or custody and to understand and clarify the remainder of the complainant’s request.
12. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the request described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.c, above.
13. It is further concluded that a civil penalty pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S., is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case.
On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 2002.
_______________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Warden, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
MacDougall Correctional
Institution; and State of
Connecticut, Department of
Correction
c/o Matthew B. Beizer, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-084/FD/paj/9/27/2002