FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 23, 2009, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 et al, 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.  By letter of complaint filed November 4, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for copies of public records and by failing to acknowledge his status as an indigent individual.       

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated October 1, 2008 the complainant requested copies of seven categories[1] of records pertaining to policies and procedures of the respondent police department, viz.:

 

                        1.         Posting bond;

                        2.         A supervisor’s duties in relation to posting bond;

                        3.         Taking statements of witnesses;

                        4.         A supervisor’s duties in relation to taking statements of witnesses;

                        5.         Taking a written confession;

                        6.         A supervisor’s duties in relation to taking a written confession; and

                        7.         Notary services.

                         

4.  It is found that the respondents by letter dated October 3, 2008 answered that they had no written policies responsive to the complainant’s request, provided some simple answers responsive to the complainant’s requests (e.g., “When a person posts bond, he is released.  This is governed by state statute.”) . 

 

            5.  It is found that the respondents are required to have written policies regarding such topics as pursuit and domestic violence, but not regarding the topics requested by the complainant.

 

6.  It is found that the respondents conducted a diligent search for the requested written policies, and that none exist.

 

7.  It is therefore 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 dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 23, 2009.

 

____________________________

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:

 

Omar Miller #202230

MacDougall-Walker C I

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of New London; and

Police Department,

City of New London

C/o Brian K. Estep, Esq.

Conway & Londregan PC

38 Huntington Street

P.O. Box 1351

New London, CT 06320

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-703FD/sw/9/25/2009