FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 21, 2005, at which time the complainant presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See  Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford,  Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).  The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

 

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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that, by letter dated June 7, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the following documents:

 

a.       the warrant for his arrest, dated September 9, 1996, for the charge of felony murder;

 

b.      any and all records resulting from the aforementioned arrest;

 

c.       any and all witness statements on file, including the complainant’s statement, pertaining to the arrest; and

 

d.      any crime scene photographs taken associated with the aforementioned arrest. 

 

The complainant included with his request a signed affidavit of his indigence and requested that fees for the copies he requested be waived.

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated June 17, 2005, and filed on June 23, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.

 

4.      It is found that by letter dated June 13, 2005, which letter the complainant did not receive until after he filed his complaint, the respondent responded to the complainant’s June 7, 2005 request and requested that he remit the sum of fifty-three (53) dollars for 105 pages of records that were compiled in response to his request.

 

5.      It is found that the complainant has no means by which to pay the fee requested by the respondent and requested that this Commission order the respondent to provide the records free of charge.

 

6.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Except 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 section 1-212. 

 

7.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

8.      Section 1-212(a)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that the fee for any copy provided in accordance with the FOI Act by a municipal agency “. . . shall not exceed fifty cents per page . . . .”

 

9.      Additionally, §1-212(d)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that “. . . [t]he public agency shall waive any fee provided for in this section when . . . [t]he person requesting the records is an indigent individual ….”

 

10.   It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

11.   It is found that the complainant has no income, no assets, and no money in any accounts and that a signed affidavit from his unit manager at the prison was provided to the respondent attesting to the complainant’s indigence.

 

12.   It is found that the standard for establishing one's eligibility for a waiver of the fees charged for copies of public records is wholly within the discretion of the custodial public agency, as long as the standard is objective, fair and reasonable, and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

 

13.   It is found, however, that the respondent failed to appear at the hearing in this matter to establish that he has a documented criteria for determining indigence and that the complainant did not meet that criteria.

 

14.   Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a), 1-212(a)(2) and 1-212(d)(1), G.S., by not providing the complainant with a copy of the requested records and for by not waiving the fee for such copy.  

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.      Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the records described in paragraph 4, of the findings above, free of charge.

 

2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provision of §§1-210(a), 1-212(a)(2) and 1-212(d)(1), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 8, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Thomas Nappi, #249890

Osborn Correctional Institution

PO Box 100

335 Bilton Road

Somers, CT 06071

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Haven

One Union Avenue

New Haven, CT 06519

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-304FD/paj/3/9/2006