FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Walter F. Carneglia,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-170

 

Norwalk Police Department,

 

                                Respondent                          March 27, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 30, 1995, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

                1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.             It is found that by letter dated May 1, 1995 ("May request"), the complainant requested copies of records pertaining to his application for a Norwalk pistol permit, to wit: a) his pistol permit application file, b) Connecticut State Police ("state police") fingerprint application and background check information, c) FBI fingerprint request, and d) the letter sent to Connecticut's Department of Public Safety requesting that his state pistol permit be revoked ("revocation letter").

 

                3.             By letter of complaint dated May 16, 1995, and filed May 23, 1995, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to, or comply with his records request.

 

                4.             The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties in accordance with 1-21i(b)(2), G.S.

 

                5.             The respondent does not dispute that the requested records should have been provided to the complainant, as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

               

 

Docket #FIC 95-170                                             Page 2

 

                6.             However, the respondent contends that it never received the complainant's May request, and that is the only reason that there was no compliance.

 

                7.             The respondent further states that the complainant made several records requests--two prior written requests and an oral request--all of which were received and complied with by the respondent.

 

                8.             At the hearing on this case, the respondent provided the complainant with those documents that are responsive to his records request, as more fully described in paragraphs 2(a) through 2(c), above.

 

                9.             With respect to the revocation letter, described in paragraph 2(d), above, it is found that late in July 1995, the respondent had occasion to inform the complainant that the letter did exist but had been sent to the state police.  The respondent advised the complainant to request a copy of the revocation letter from the state police.

 

                10. It is found that the complainant requested that the state police provide him with a copy of the revocation letter, and early in August 1995, he received a copy of the letter from them.

 

                11.           It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with copies of the requested records.

 

                12.           The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty under the facts and circumstances of this case.

 

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

 

                1.             Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.

 

                                                                              

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-170                                             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:

Walter F. Carneglia

P.O. Box 852

Norwalk, CT 06852-0852

 

Norwalk Police Department

c/o M. Jeffrey Spahr, Esq.

P.O. Box 798

South Norwalk, CT 06855

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission