FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final
Decision
William Stroffolino,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 89-38
Norwalk Chief of Police,
Respondent September
27, 1989
The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing as a
contested case on May 25, 1989, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented evidence 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 §1-18(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated January 7, 1989, the complainant requested copies of nine categories of
records:
(a) the corrected report of an accident in which the complainant
was involved on June 12, 1988 at Vets Park, Norwalk, including the names of the
persons involved in investigations or questioned or contacted;
(b) the record of any action taken against Officer Bauer for
making an incorrect report of the June 12, 1988 accident described above;
(c) the report by Officer Pittman concerning the complainant's
complaint alleging police brutality when the complainant bailed a prisoner out
of jail at the Norwalk Police Department;
(d) a copy of records concerning the dog the complainant was
forced to return to the Norwalk pound which was put to sleep for biting three
persons, and records containing the name of the female officer who witnessed
the injection;
(e) records showing the times and dates officer Steve Kuance
questioned the complainant about a sunken boat;
(f) a report concerning an incident in 1985 when Officer Fuller
Docket #FIC 89-38 page
2
made the complainant move
his car, which was parked on Highview;
(g) a report of legally registered and parked cars which were
towed off the city streets for the year 1985;
(h) records showing the dates the Norwalk Police applied for a
search warrant for property at 22 Barbara Drive, Norwalk; and
(i) a copy of the complainant's current arrest
record.
3. On
January 31, 1981, the complainant filed his appeal with this Commission after
the respondent failed to provide the requested records.
4. At
hearing the complainant withdrew his request for item 2(e).
5. At
hearing the respondent agreed to search for and provide items 2(c), 2(f), and
2(g).
6. It is
found that items 2(a) and 2(i) have been provided to the complainant but that
the complainant wants the content of the records corrected.
7. It is
concluded that, as to items 2(a) and 2(i), the respondent is not required under
the Freedom of Information Act to correct or modify the content of public
records in order to satisfy the person
who requests copies of public records.
8. It is
found that item 2(b) does not exist.
9. It is
found item 2(d) was the subject of a discovery request by the complainant in a
federal lawsuit, Docket No. B-85-63 (RCZ).
10. Section
1-19b(b) provides in pertinent part:
Nothing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to
1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be deemed in any manner
to (1) affect ... the rights of litigants, including the parties to
administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state ....
11. It is
found that the complainant is a litigant within the meaning of §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S.
12. It is
found that §1-19b(b)(1), G.S. should be interpreted to foster a policy of
comity in cases in which records are, or may be, requested under the discovery
rules of
Docket #FIC 89-38 page
3
another tribunal and also
requested under the disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
13. Accordingly,
under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines
to decide whether item 2(d) is subject to disclosure under the provisions of
the Freedom of Information Act.
14. At hearing
the complainant limited his request for
item 2(h) to a request for any search warrant which authorized a search
of his property at 22 Barbara Drive which was issued during the first half of
1983.
15. The
respondent claimed that the requested warrant was exempt from disclosure as a
pending investigation, and furthermore, the respondent did not know whether any
such warrant existed.
16. It is found
that the respondent failed to prove the warrant, if it exists, was exempt
pursuant to §1-19(b)(3), G.S. or any other statutory exemption.
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 as to items 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), and 2(i).
2. The
respondent shall conduct a search and shall provide to the complainant pursuant to its agreement the records
described at items 2(c), 2(f) and 2(g).
3. The
respondent shall conduct a search for item 2(h) , as limited by agreement of
the complainant at paragraph 14, and, if any warrant is found, shall provide
the complainant with a copy.
Docket #FIC 89-38 page
4
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
WILLIAM STROFFOLINO, 22
Barbara Drive, Norwalk, CT 06851
NORWALK CHIEF OF POLICE, c/o
M. Jeffry Spahr, Esq., Norwalk Law Department, City Hall, P.O. Box 798,
Norwalk, CT 06856
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of September 27, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission