FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 1, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case caption has been amended to reflect the addition of a named respondent. 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated June 29, 2007, the complainant made a request for copies of “public records or files, as defined in Connecticut General Statutes (“General Statutes”), §1-220(a)(5), related to, regarding, and/or concerning the DPS requirement that individuals submit a birth certificate, United States passport or voter registration card when applying to the state of Connecticut for pistol permit renewal.”

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated July 5, 2007, the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s request for records, and informed him that his request would be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”). 

4.      By letter dated July 17, 2007 and filed July 20, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents’ failure to produce the requested records violated the FOI Act. 

 

5.      By letter dated July 18, 2007, the respondents advised the complainant that they had completed their search for records in connection with his request, and provided the complainant with two responsive records.

 

6.      By letter dated February 4, 2008 and filed February 7, 2008, the complainant amended his appeal by requesting the imposition of civil penalties against Attorney Jennifer Janeiro and Commanding Officer Albert Masek, Jr.

 

7.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

8.      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 . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 1-212.

 

9.      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.”

 

10.  It is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records are public records and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure. 

 

11.  It is found that prior to the hearing in this matter, the respondents provided the complainant with two additional records, both of which predated, and were responsive to, the complainant’s request.

 

12.  It is further found that on the day of the hearing in this matter, the respondents provided the complainant with five additional records, all of which predated, and were responsive to, the complainant’s request. 

13.  It is concluded that the records provided to the complainant on the day of the hearing, referred to in paragraph 12, above, constitute public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., and further that such records, provided approximately nine months after the request, were not provided “promptly” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

14.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness requirement of the FOI Act. 

 

15.  It is found that in connection with their first search for records responsive to the complainant’s request, the respondents construed the request too narrowly, searching only for records that addressed the respondents’ “implementation” of the policy to require proof of legal status in connection with a pistol permit application.  It is found that the respondents’ construction of the request was based on previous correspondence between the parties.

 

16.  It is found that on the morning of the hearing in this matter, the respondents conducted another search for records responsive to the complainant’s request.  In addition, at the hearing, the respondents requested that the Commission permit them the opportunity to conduct another search for records that more adequately addressed the scope of the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

17.  While it is found that the respondents failed to make a thorough search for all existing records that are responsive to the complainant’s request, it is concluded such failure was based on a genuine misunderstanding of the request.  The Commission, therefore, declines to impose a civil penalty in this matter. 

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

            1.   Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements of the FOI Act.

            2.   The respondents shall forthwith make a thorough search for the requested records described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.  In the event the respondents locate additional records responsive to the complainant’s request, they shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of such records, at no cost.

3.   In the event the respondents do not locate additional records, they shall forthwith provide the complainant with an affidavit attesting that, upon a complete and thorough search of their records, no additional records responsive to his request were located.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 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:

 

Peter Kuck

602 Park Road

West Hartford, CT 06107 and

c/o Rachel M. Baird, Esq.

379 Prospect Street

Torrington, CT 06790-5239

           

Albert J. Masek, Jr., Commanding

Officer, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Special Investigations and Support;

Attorney Jennifer Janeiro, State of

Connecticut, Department of Public

Safety, Legal Affairs Unit;

and State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

Jennifer Janeiro, Esq.

State of Connecticut

Department of Public Safety

Legal Affairs Unit

1111 Country Club Road

Middletown, CT 06457-2389

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-403FD/paj/5/20/2008