FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Elizabeth L. Fox,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-312
Windsor Locks Police Department,
Respondent March 23, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 4, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on November 12, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to respond to her request for public records sent to the respondent on October 7, 1993 and received by the respondent October 8, 1993.
3. It is found that by letter dated October 7, 1993, the complainant requested the following of the respondent:
a) a complete set of the photographs, including the
polaroid photographs taken at the MOTEL-6, room number
232 on October 19, 1991;
b) a complete file of the written reports made by the
officers (four) involved at the scene; and
c) retrieval of a brown manilla envelope which contained
the detoxification center's phone number and address,
and the bullet-shell fragments.
4. The requested items identified in paragraph 3c), above, are not public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5. Those records in the possession of the respondent identified in paragraph 3a) - b), above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-312 Page 2
6. It is found that the respondent has reports written by Detectives Rachele and Russo and Sergeants Barren and Tharaldson. However, no report was ever made by Detective McSweegan as alleged by the complainant.
7. It is found that the respondent has on several occasions supplied copies of all pertinent written reports and photographs to employees or agents of the complainant, including her attorneys and private investigators.
8. It is also found that the respondent did not respond to the complainant's request of October 7, 1993.
9. Although the respondent has on many occasions supplied copies of the requested records to the complainant's agents and provided photographs to the complainant in April, 1992, such facts do not constitute an exemption for the records requested by the complainant in her October 7, 1993 letter.
10. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide copies of the requested records to the complainant.
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 to the complainant a copy of those records in its possession pertinent to the request identified in paragraph 3a) - b) of the findings, above.
2. That portion of the complaint identified at paragraph 3c) of the findings, above, is dismissed.
3. Although it has not been found to be the case at this time, this Commission urges the complainant to be mindful that the filing of duplicative requests to a public agency could in certain situations be found frivolous or even harassing.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 23, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-312 Page 3
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:
Ms. Elizabeth L. Fox
2 Derek Lane
Windsor, CT 06096
Windsor Locks Police Department
c/o Karen M. Flanagan, Esq.
P.O. Box 280927
East Hartford, CT 06108
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission