FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

David T. Connolly,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-350

 

Michael Kozlowski, Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles,

 

                                Respondent                          April 24, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1996, 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 dated October 4, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 10, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to copies of records.

 

                3.  It is found that by letter dated September 1, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") codes or statutes concerning whether:

 

                                a              a citizen can travel freely on the roads in an automobile without an operator's license;

 

                                b.             within the DMV codes and/or statutes a citizen is required to register his or her non-commercial automobile to travel on the roads or interstate;

 

                                c.             when a citizen signs a Connecticut driver's license application does he or she certify that they are a resident of the "State of Forum" of the DMV; and

 

                                d.             when a citizen signs a Connecticut driver's license does one relinquish a portion of their sovereignty.

 

In the request described in paragraph 3, above, the complainant requested that if there are no documents responsive to his request that the respondent provide him with a written response.  The complainant requested in his complaint that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

                4.  It is found that the respondent has no record of having received the September 1, 1995 request and that the complainant has no proof of delivery or receipt of such request by the respondent.

 

                5.  It is found that on November 15, 1995 the respondent received from the complainant a request similar to that described in paragraph 3, above, with the exception that the request was made under the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act.

 

                6.  It is found that in response to the November 15, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 5, above, the respondent by letter dated November 21, 1995 informed the complainant that the only records maintained by the respondent responsive to his request are the Connecticut General Statutes, and enclosed a copy of the pertinent portions such statutes.

 

                7.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified his request by indicating that he wants all records maintained by the respondent that give the DMV the power to strip the complainant of his right to uninhibited travel.

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain any records responsive to the complainant's request as described in paragraphs 3 and 8, above, which it has not provided to the complainant.

 

                9.  The complainant contends that his application for a license being maintained by the respondent is an example of a record which the respondent has not provided to him.

 

                10.  It is found however, that the complainant has not made a request to the respondent for a copy of his application for a license.

 

                11.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent indicated its continued willingness to provide the complainant with access to non-exempt records maintained by the respondent.

 

                12.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., as he responded to the complainant's request and provided him with access to a copy of the records presently maintained which are responsive to such request.

 

Docket #FIV 95-350                                                   Page 3

 

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

 

                1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-350                                             Page 4

 

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:

David T. Connolly

45 Dogwood Circle

Woodbridge, CT 06525

 

Michael Kozlowski, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

60 State Street

Wethersfield, CT 06162

 

                                                                              

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission