FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 26, 2010, at which time the complainant 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 et al., Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). The respondents failed to appear despite the hearing being delayed for 30 minutes to give counsel an opportunity to appear, and failed to respond to the hearing officer’s courtesy telephone message on the day of the hearing, inquiring as to counsel’s absence.

 

This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2010-357, Craig Wilson v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport et al.

 

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 filed April 9, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents failed to respond to his request for public records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated March 11, 2010, requested from the respondents records pertaining to his investigation and arrest and conviction in Bridgeport Police Department case number 04N089. Specifically, the complainant requested:

 

a.          Any and all reports, notes, recordings, memoranda, photographs, statements, videos or any other documents in their possession or control pertaining to Bridgeport Police Department case number 04N089;

b.         Name, rank and badge numbers of any and all police personnel who took part in any aspect of the arrest or investigation leading up to the criminal arrest for Bridgeport Police Department case number 04N089;

c.          Any and all data provided by the “KEL SYSTEM” utilized in Bridgeport Police Department case no. 04N089;

d.         The complete copy of the Bridgeport Police Department’s policy and procedures for the operation of the “KEL SYSTEM” that was utilized for Bridgeport Police Department case number 04N089;

e.          A complete copy of the “KEL System” manufacturer’s operation manual; and

f.          A complete copy of any and all internal Bridgeport Police Department investigations or inquiries into the actions of any of the officers involved with Bridgeport Police Department case number 048089.

 

4.  It is found that the respondents failed to respond to the request.

 

5.  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 section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

7.  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.”

 

8.  It is found that 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. 

 

9. It is concluded that the respondents failed to prove the applicability of any exclusion or exemption from the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act.

 

10. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the 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 respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant copies of the requested records, free of charge.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 23, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Craig Wilson #158434

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT  06080

 

Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and

Police Department, City of Bridgeport

c/o Richard G. Kascak, Jr., Esq.

Office of the City Attorney

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-232/FD/cac/3/28/2011