FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 8, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and 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, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).

 

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.  It is found that, by letter dated March 4, 2008, the complainant made a request to the respondents for:

 

(a)     “a complete copy of any and all complaints & lawsuits adjudicated, [sic] against the danbury police department, in the use of taser gun”; and

 

(b)    “ a complete copy of the policy and procedure of a police officer use of a taser gun on a detainee or prisoner, by the danbury police.”

 

3.  By letter of complaint dated March 17, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by failing to comply with the request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

 

4.      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.

 

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

 

6.  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.”

 

7.  It is found that, to the extent that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph 2, above, such 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. 

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated March 24, 2008, the respondents informed the complainant that, with regard to the request described in paragraph 2(a), above, “the Danbury Police Department has not had any complaints or lawsuits adjudicated against it regarding the use of Taser.”   It is further found that, with regard to the request described in paragraph 2(b), above, the respondents, with the March 24 letter, enclosed “a copy of our General Order on the Use of Taser (5 pages).”

 

9.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondents should have some records of lawsuits or complaints involving the Danbury police and the use of tasers, because he recalled reading about a lawsuit in the newspaper involving the Danbury police and the use of tasers.  The complainant further argued that the respondents had not provided him with a complete response to his request for a copy of the taser policy.  Finally, the complainant contended that the respondents’ response to his request was not prompt. 

 

           

            10.  With regard to the request described in paragraph 2(a), above, it is found that any records responsive to such request maintained by the respondents would be considered “internal affairs” complaints or records, and that all such records are searchable via a computerized database.   

 

11.  It is found that, upon receipt of the request described in paragraph 2(a), above, the respondent chief forwarded such request to the internal affairs officer, who did a computerized search for records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2(a), above.  In addition, it is found that the respondents contacted corporation counsel’s office to determine whether that office maintained any records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2(a), above.  

 

12.  It is found that the respondents conducted a thorough search for any records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2(a), above, and that no records responsive to such request were found.

 

13.  With regard to the request described in paragraph 2(b), above, it is found that the respondents understood such request as a request for a copy of the only record maintained by the respondents concerning the policies and procedures regarding the use of taser—a five page “General Order #05-054”  “Use of Taser Conducted Energy Weapon” (the General Order). 

 

14.  According to the complainant, the respondents also should have provided to him, in response to the request described in paragraph 2(b), above, a copy of the “Use of Force Matrix” guidelines.  It is found that the guidelines are referenced in the General Order, and are either a separate written document or a computer “PowerPoint” program “established to assist Danbury Police Officers in their decision-making process regarding the appropriate use of force.”  It is found that the complainant requested a copy of the guidelines from the respondents on April 10, 2008, almost one month after he filed the instant appeal with this Commission. 

 

15.  It is found that the guidelines are not within the scope of the request described in paragraph 2(b), above.  It is further found that the April 10, 2008 request for the guidelines, referenced in paragraph 14, above, is not the subject of the instant appeal and will not be further addressed herein.

 

            16.  With regard to the complainant’s claim that the respondents did not promptly respond to his request for records, it is found that the respondents received such request on March 11, 2008.  It is found that the complainant received a response to his request on March 24, 2008, less than two weeks later.  It is found that the respondents’ response was prompt, within the meaning of §1-212(a), G.S.

 

            17.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged. 

 

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.  The Commission notes that although the respondents were not obligated to do so in connection with the request that is the subject of the instant appeal, the respondents might have avoided the time and expense of a hearing by providing the complainant with a copy of the guidelines, once it became apparent that he was seeking a copy of such guidelines. 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

John Sylvia, #208614 

Osborn C I

335 Bilton Road

P.O. Box 100

Somers, CT 06071

 

Alan D. Baker, Chief, Police Department,

City of Danbury; and Police Department,

City of Danbury

c/o Laszlo L. Pinter, Esq. 

Corporation Counsel

City of Danbury

155 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-176FD/sw/9/13/2008