FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 4, 2007 and January 22, 2008, 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)(A), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that by letter dated March 8, 2007, the complainant, through her attorney, made a written request of the respondent for copies of records concerning the conduct of employees of the respondent. 

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated March 26, 2007, the respondent’s attorney acknowledged the complainant’s request and indicated that she was working on compliance with it.  It is further found that by letters dated April 12 and 17, 2007, the respondent’s attorney provided copies of some of the records requested by the complainant.  It is found that the respondent claimed, in general, that he could disclose the records described in paragraph 2, above, only if the employees who were the subject of such records did not object to the disclosure.

 

4.      It is found that by letter dated April 27, 2007 and filed on the same date, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above.

 

5.      It is found that by letters dated May 3, 2007 and October 1, 2007, the respondent continued to supplement compliance with the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above, by providing copies of additional records.  

 

6.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records or files” as:

 

Any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, … whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

7.   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.

 

8.      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.”

 

9.      It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.   It is found that subsequent to the October 4, 2007 hearing in this matter, the respondent provided copies of all the records requested by the complainant, with the exception of records that the respondent claimed were exempt from disclosure pursuant to the state’s erasure statutes. 

 

11.   Section 54-142a, G.S., provides in pertinent part:

 

(a)    Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken… (e) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of such records in the records center of the Judicial Department or any law enforcement agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone, except the subject of the record, …information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this section.

 

12.  Upon order of the Hearing Officer in this matter, the respondent submitted for in camera inspection the records claimed to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to §54-142a, G.S.  Such pages shall be identified herein as IC-2007-255-1 through IC-2007-255-38.

 

13.  After careful review of the in camera records, described in paragraph 12, above, it is found that they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §54-142a, G.S.

 

14.   It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by refusing to provide copies of the records described in paragraph 12, above.                                                                                           

 

15.   It is found that the parties agreed prior to the conclusion of the October 4, 2007 hearing in this matter that the respondent would provide a sworn statement that he maintains no other records responsive to the complainant’s request.  It is found that the respondent’s witness testified at the October 4, 2007 hearing that he searched diligently and maintained no other records than those disclosed to the complainant or identified as responsive but confidential under the state’s erasure statutes.

 

16.   It is found, however, that the respondent has not provided such testimony, in writing, pursuant to the agreement between the parties described in paragraph 15, above. 

 

17.   Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

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

 

1.   The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a written statement attesting to the diligence of his search for the records described in paragraph 2, above, and that he has provided copies of all the records.

                                                                                               

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Darlene Passapera

c/o Susan Wallace, Esq.

11 Blue Orchard Drive

Middletown, CT 06457

           

Thomas Wydra, Chief,

Police Department,

Town of Hamden

c/o Susan Gruen, Esq.

Town Attorney

2750 Dixwell Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-255FD/paj/3/17/2008