FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 13, 2010 and January 10, 2011, at which times 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 filed July 9, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his request for public records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated June 15, 2010, requested from the respondents a certain “Supplement 3” to the incident report in his case.

 

4.  It is found that the respondents initially could not locate the record, because it had been deleted from their own computer system. 

 

5.  It is found that the respondents deleted the draft because it had been used by the reporting officer only as a template for creating other reports, was not itself part of the formal record of the investigation, and contained no information that was not contained in other reports.

 

6. Following the hearing in this matter the respondents, at the request of the hearing officer, obtained a copy of the record from the independent contractor, and pledged to provide it to the complainant.

 

7. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act.

 

 

 

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

 

            1.  The respondents are commended for obtaining a copy of a record that was not in their own computer system.

 

            2. The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 8, 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:

 

John Ingram #88634

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

Chief, Police Department, Town of East Hartford; and

Police Department, Town of East Hartford

c/o Frank N. Cassetta, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT  06108

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-434/FD/cac/6/14/2011