FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Andrew J.
Torraco,
Complainant Docket #FIC 86-191
against
State of
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles,
Respondent December 16, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 4, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. 14-36(e),
G.S., provides that if an applicant for a motor vehicle operator's license
suffers from any physical defect or disease which might affect his or her
ability to operate a motor vehicle, the commissioner of motor vehicles may
require such person to demonstrate his or her fitness to drive, and may require
a physician's certificate of such fitness.
3. On
or about March 12, 1986 the complainant was summoned by the respondent,
pursuant to 14-36(e), G.S., to appear for a driver's examination. The complainant was required to submit to a
reexamination as the result of a complaint filed against him alleging that he
was physically unfit to operate a motor vehicle. The complainant subsequently submitted to and passed the driver's
examination and a physical examination.
4. By
letter dated June 23, 1986 the complainant made a request of the respondent for
a copy of the complaint against him.
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 3, 1986 the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to provide him with a copy of the requested
letter.
6. The
respondent claims that the letter of complaint is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-191 Page Two
7. It
is found that the respondent is a law enforcement agency within the meaning of
1-19(b)(3), G.S., pursuant to the provisions of 14-8 and
54-142g(b), G.S.
8. The
respondent failed to prove that operating a motor vehicle while suffering from
a physical defect or from a disease constitutes "an infraction"
within the meaning of 14-36(g), G.S. or "crime" within the
meaning of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
9. The
respondent also failed to prove that the requested letter is exempt from
disclosure pursuant to any other provision of the Freedom of Information Act,
other state statute, or federal law.
10. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. when
it denied the complainant's request for a copy of the complaint in question.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the letter of
complaint which prompted the respondent's reexamination, on or about March 12,
1986, of the complainant's ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of December 16, 1986
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission