FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 2, 2010, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letters dated June 7 and June 9, 2010, the complainant requested access to various records, and the Chief of Police, Town of Cheshire responded to each letter on the very same day as the date of the complainant’s letters. By letter dated June 7, 2010, the Chief of Police, Town of Cheshire forwarded various records to the complainant.   

 

3.  By letter dated and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (the “Commission”) on July 6, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents failed to provide access to public records in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

4.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., states in relevant part:

 

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, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

5.  At the hearing, the complainant stated that the only portion of his records request that remained outstanding was his request to inspect any record that authorized Officer Falk on June 3, 2010 to take the auto registration and insurance card for a Toyota Corolla which was registered in the names of the complainant and his wife (the “requested records”).

 

6.  It is concluded that the requested records, if any, described in paragraph 5, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.  It is found that the June 7, 2010 letter from the Chief of Police, Town of Cheshire included a copy of §14-217, G.S., which authorizes a police officer to take a registration certificate or insurance identification card “in hand for the purpose of examination”.

 

8.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain or keep on file any other record, in addition to §14-217, G.S., that is within the scope of the request set forth in paragraph 5, above. Moreover, the responses of the respondents to the complainant’s letters were exceedingly prompt.

   

9.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.  The complainant, in essence, alleges that on June 3, 2010 the Police Department, Town of Cheshire exceeded its authority, as set forth in §14-217, G.S. The Commission has no jurisdiction concerning this question.  

 

             The following orders by the Commission are 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 May 11, 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:

 

Derf J. Kleist

251 Lancaster Way

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

Town Manager, Town of Cheshire; and

Town of Cheshire

c/o Michael C. Markowicz, Esq.

Murtha Cullina LLP

185 Asylum Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-420/FD/cac/5/16/2011