FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Walter J. Smykla,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 1995-414
Daniel J. Coppinger, Chief of
Police, Plainville Police Department,
Respondent July 24, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 2, 1996, 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. By letter of complaint filed with this
Commission on December 18, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent
violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by
denying him copies of the following records:
a) an unedited tape of the
Plainville police dispatcher and the complainant;
b) the tape made from the
Plainville department radio communications tape between all cars and beat units
on Saturday October 21, 1995; and,
c) all reports made by any
Plainville police department employee with case number 95-8035.
3. The records identified in paragraph
2(a)-(c), above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 1995-414 Page
2
4. It is found that on November 15 and November
17, 1995, the complainant made written requests for copies of the records
identified in paragraph 2, above, of the respondent.
5. It is also found that by letter dated
November 20, 1995, the respondent denied the complainant's requests "due
to the pending criminal case involving (his) arrest for threatening."
6. The respondent claims that §1-20b(b), G.S.,
exempts the requested records from disclosure.
7. Section 1-20b(b), G.S., provides in
pertinent part that:
"record of the
arrest" means (1) the name and address of the person arrested, the date,
time and place of the arrest and the offense for which the person was arrested,
and (2) at least one of the following, designated by the law enforcement agency:
the arrest report, incident report, news release."
8. It is concluded that the respondent violated
the provisions of §§1-15 and 1-20b(b), G.S., by failing to provide to the
complainant any record of arrest or other reports as identified in paragraph
2c), above.
9. It is found that the tapes identified in
paragraphs 2a) and b), above, were made in the routine course of the police
department's business.
10. It is concluded that the tapes at issue are
not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(3), G.S.
11. At the hearing into this matter, the
respondent claimed that the complainant should be made to seek the records at
issue through his attorney pursuant to discovery proceedings in Superior Court.
12. It is found that the complainant did not
seek the records at issue through discovery proceedings.
13. It is concluded that no provision of the FOI
Act requires the complainant to seek the records at issue through discovery
proceedings in Superior Court.
Docket #FIC 1995-414 Page
3
14. It is also concluded that the respondent
failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exemptions for disclosure of the
requested records under the facts of this case.
15. It is concluded that the respondent violated
the provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-20b, G.S., under the facts of this case.
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 the records identified in paragraph 2)-c), of the
findings, above.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
July 24, 1996.
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
fic1995-414/fd/mwp/07311996
Docket
# FIC 1995-414 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:
Walter
J. Smykla
51
Tomlinson Avenue
Plainville,
CT 06062
Daniel J. Coppinger, Chief of Police
Plainville Police Department
c/o Atty. Robert A. Michalik
Plainville Town Attorney
P.O. Box 2950
136 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06050-2950,
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission