FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Robert Koetsch and Newtown Police Union, Local #3153,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2002-074
Michael K. Kehoe, Chief, Police Department, Town of Newtown,
		Respondents	October 23, 2002

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 3, 2002, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated January 20, 2002, to the respondent, the complainant Koetsch requested a copy of a “detailed listing of all telephone lines that enter the police department that are currently being recorded either through analog or digital technology.”

 

3.      By letter dated January 23, 2002, the respondent responded to the complainant Koetsch’s request by informing him that all telephone lines are subject to recording except for the telephone line reserved for the Newtown Police Union. 

 

4.      By letter dated February 19, 2002 and filed on February 22, 2002, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.  The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

5.      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. 

 

6.      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 . . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the requested record, to the extent such record exists, is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant Koetsch explained that his request was for an actual list of the exact telephone lines that are presently being recorded by the Newtown police department (hereinafter “the department”).  The complainant explained that the department has installed a new digital telephone recording system that he believes can generate the list he is seeking.  The complainant contends that because such a list can be generated, the respondent’s January 23, 2002 response was too vague and failed to comply with his request.

 

9.      It is found that the department had a designated unrecorded telephone line and further gave notice to its officers through its policy and procedures manual exactly which telephone lines were subject to recording.

 

10.  It is found that on or about January 17, 2002 the respondent indicated in a memo that all telephone lines are subject to recording except for the telephone line reserved for the Newtown Police Union

 

11.  It is also found that a new policy consistent with the respondent’s memo was officially adopted on April 2, 2002.

 

12.  It is found that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent’s January 23, 2002 letter was an appropriate response to the complainant, which clearly indicates that all telephone lines, other than that reserved for the union, are subject to recording and that such response would generally eliminate the need for any specific list.

 

13.  Nonetheless, it is found that the department has installed a digital voice logger which provides the department with technologically advanced methods of recording, listening to, storing, playing back, monitoring and e-mailing conversations held on the department’s telephone lines.

 

14.  It is also found, however, that while the system is very advanced there is no evidence in the record to establish that the system can produce a list of the exact telephone lines that are subject to recording.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

16.  The complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty is denied.

 

 

 

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 October 23, 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:

 

Robert Koetsch

PO Box 3354

Newtown, CT 06470

 

Newtown Police Union, Local #3153

c/o Harry B. Elliott, Jr., Esq.

Council 15, Legal Department

290 Pratt Street

Meriden, CT 06450

 

Michael K. Kehoe, Chief,

Police Department, Town of Newtown

c/o Monte E. Frank, Esq.

Cohen and Wolf, P.C.

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-074/FD/paj/10/29/2002