FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 15, April 25, July 18, and August 22, 2006, at which times 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.      It is found that by letter dated August 26, 2005, the complainant, through counsel, requested access to and copies of certain records which request included the following:

 

a.       “all notes/internal memoranda/investigation reports, in whatever form(s), either generated by and/or received by anyone connected with the Waterbury Police Department and/or Forensic Science Lab, Division of the State Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or from any other law enforcement agency associated with and/or involved in the investigation of the homicide of Waterbury Police Officer Walter Williams, including but not limited to the notes of David Apicella, P. Augelli, Paul Bruce, Tom Buchanan, Mark Christian, Jay Clary, Daniel Coleman, D. Costa, Mark Deal, Bart Deely, A. Dellamaggio, Philip DiStiso, Pat Danahue, James Egan, Joseph Flaherty, Stephen Flaherty, John Healy, Robert Henderson, Kevin Henebry, James Griffin, Timothy Jackson, Peter Keegan, T. Kluntz, Greg LaFontaine, John Maia, Martin Mancinelli, F. Monahan, James Nardozzi, Robert K. O’Brien, Neil O’Leary, Edward Pekrul, John Perugini, Robert Readel, Sgt. Ricci, Marshall Robinson, Anthony Solomita, Edward Stephens, and T. Wright;” and

 

b.      “all video tape or audio-visual recordings taken in connection with the investigation of the homicide of Walter Williams and/or reasonable access to such items.”

 

3.      By letter dated November 25, 2005 and filed on November 28, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with his request.

 

4.      It is found that the records described in paragraph 2a and 2b, above, are the only records at issue in this matter.

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any 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 records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that the records officer for the Waterbury Police Department (hereinafter “WPD”), Lieutenant DaPonte, reviewed the WPD’s file of the Walter Williams homicide investigation and found no records responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above.

 

9.      It is found that Lieutenant DaPonte attempted to obtain the contact information for all of the individuals named in paragraph 2a, above, from the WPD’s human resources department in order to ask if they had “any notes related to the Walter Williams investigation.” 

 

10.  It is found that three of the individuals were not law enforcement agents of the WPD and consequently Lieutenant DaPonte was not able to obtain their contact information.

 

11.   It is found that three of the individuals named are deceased.

 

12.   It is found that Lieutenant DaPonte attempted to contact 5 of the remaining 32 individuals but was not able to speak with them because they either never returned his calls or the contact information was no longer valid.

 

13.   It is found that, of the remaining 27 individuals, Lieutenant DaPonte contacted and spoke with 26 who informed him that they did not have any notes related to the Walter Williams investigation.

 

14.   It is found that the remaining individual of the 27 described in paragraph 12, above, said that he would check to see if he had any notes, however, he never contacted Lieutenant DaPonte to state whether he did or not.  It is found that Lieutenant DaPonte left the individual a voicemail message inquiring and the individual did not respond to his call.

 

15.   It is found that the respondent conducted a reasonable search for the records described in paragraph 2a, above, and found no records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

16.   It is found that the respondent does not maintain any records responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above.

 

17.   With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the respondent only maintains an audio reel to reel tape recording of a certain 911 call from 1992 (hereinafter “audio tape recording”) which is responsive to such request.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain any responsive video or audio-visual tape recordings.

 

18.   It is found that the respondent does not claim that the tape recording is exempt from disclosure.

 

19.   It is found, however, that the respondent does not have the ability to copy the audio tape recording and has, for the better part of a year, searched for, and has been unable to find, a company that is able to copy the audio tape recording.

 

20.   It is found that the complainant has also searched and been unable to find a company capable of copying the audio tape recording.

 

21.   Consequently, the respondent has not complied with the complainant’s request for a copy of the audio tape recording.

 

22.   Notwithstanding the respondent’s efforts to comply with the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2b, above, it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to comply with the complainant’s request for a copy of the tape recording described in paragraph 17, above.

 

23.    The complainant represents that as of the commission meeting of November 8, 2006, the respondent has been cooperative and the complainant has been provided with a copy of the audiotape.

 

In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that no order is necessary.

 

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

 

Richard Reynolds

c/o Paula Mangini Montonye, Esq.

144 Monticello Drive

Branford, CT 06405

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of Waterbury

c/o Charles E. Oman III, Esq.

Office of the Corporation Counsel

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT 06702

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-573FD/paj/11/14/2006