FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 9, 2003, at which time the complainant 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 and filed on September 24, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his August 11, 2002 request for access to a certain video tape.

 

3.      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. 

 

4.      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 . . . .”

 

5.      It is found that, to the extent the requested video tape exists and is maintained by the respondent, it is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

6.      It is found that on August 7, 2000, certain officers of the Bridgeport police department conducted a drug surveillance of a building complex using a closed circuit camera.  A number of arrests and convictions were made allegedly based on the video recording from the camera.

 

7.      The complainant made a request for the video tape at issue prior to his August 11, 2002 request and received a response from the respondent dated August 2, 2002, which stated that there was “no evidence [that] a video tape was turned in [to the department] concerning file number 000707-027. . . The narcotics seized from Carlton Whitehorn in this case were destroyed per court order on March 6, 2002.”

 

8.      By letter dated August 3, 2002, the complainant informed the respondent that the owner of the building complex “explicitly affirmed” that he turned the video recording into the Bridgeport police department.  The complainant requested that the respondent “review again . . . the existence of the . . . video tape or [explain why] such an item of important information does not exist.”

 

9.      It is found that the complainant’s August 11, 2002 letter, as referenced in  paragraphs 2 and 7, above, stated that the complainant “pointed out that [the video tape] should be in the possession of the department and if it is not, there should be a complete explanation as to why it is not in the department’s possession,” and requested that the respondent “please review and reply fully and promptly.”

 

10.  It is found that pursuant to Bridgeport police department policy, officers are required to deliver evidence maintained by the department to its property room and record such delivery in the property room’s log book.  Therefore, if the respondent maintained the video tape at issue, it should be in the police department’s property room and there should be a record of its delivery in the log book.

 

11.  It is found that a clerk in the respondent’s office reviewed the property room’s log book and determined that the narcotics involved in the case were delivered to the property room and destroyed pursuant to a court order; however the clerk found no record that the video tape at issue was ever delivered to the property room.

 

12.  At the hearing on this matter the complainant argued that the respondent did not conduct a thorough search for the video tape because the clerk failed to search other areas in the department and failed to interview the officers involved in the case regarding the whereabouts of the video tape at issue.  The complaint also alleged that the respondent’s response was not timely and violated the FOI Act’s provisions regarding prompt compliance with records requests.

 

13.  It is found, however, that based upon the facts and circumstance of this case, the respondent conducted a reasonable and thorough search for the video tape at issue and responded promptly within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

14.   Based on the forgoing, it is concluded that the complainant failed to prove that the respondent maintains the video tape at issue.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a), or 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.

 

16.  Notwithstanding the finding and conclusion in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, at the hearing on this matter, the respondent’s counsel indicated that she would contact the prosecutor’s office to determine if the video tape was delivered to that office and if it was available for public inspection.  The respondent’s counsel also indicated that she would inform the commission of any response she received from that office

 

 

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.

 

2.      Notwithstanding paragraphs 13 and 14 of the findings, above, at the hearing on this matter, the respondent’s counsel indicated that she would contact the prosecutor’s office to determine if the video tape was delivered to that office and if it was available for public inspection.  The respondent’s counsel also indicated that she would inform the commission of any response she received from that office.  The commission appreciates this gesture and looks forward to receiving such information.

 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

May 28, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Ethan Book, Jr.

PO Box 1385

Fairfield, CT  06432

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of Bridgeport

c/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.

Assistant City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2nd Floor

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-454FD/abg/05/29/2003