FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John Ward,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-166
Danbury Police Department,
Respondent October 24, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 20, 1990, 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 May 4, 1990 and filed with the Commission on May 7, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that he had been required to provide identification and a written request to view certain dispatch records and listen to certain tape recordings, and requesting that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents and provide an educational workshop for them.
3. It is found that the complainant visited the respondent on May 4, 1990 and asked to listen to the tape recording of incoming telephone calls and radio dispatch calls for April 27, 1990, and to see the April 27, 1990 dispatch records.
4. It is found that the records described in paragraph 3, above, are recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency.
5. It is concluded that the records described in paragraph 3, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
6. It is found that the respondent explained to the complainant that the tape recorder was being repaired and would be inoperable for the day, and that the complainant accepted this explanation as to why he couldn't listen to the tape that day.
Docket #FIC 90-166 Page two
7. It is also found that the respondent informed the complainant that no opportunity to view the dispatch records or listen to the tape would be provided unless the complainant identified himself and reduced his request to writing.
8. Specifically, it is found that the respondent required the complainant to identify himself before he could enter areas beyond the lobby of the police station where he could view the dispatch records or listen to the tape.
9. It is found that both the tape-playing equipment and the dispatch records are kept in areas of the Danbury police station beyond the lobby that are, for security reasons, accessible only to those members of the public who identify themselves.
10. It is found that all members of the public are generally required to identify themselves before entering beyond the lobby area of the police station, and that identification was not specifically imposed upon the complainant as a condition to access to records.
11. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by requiring the complainant to identify himself before entering secure areas of the police station to view or listen to public records.
12. The respondent maintains that it required a written request to listen to the dispatch tapes so that it would have a record of the complainant's request on file as a reminder to notify the complainant when the tape machine was operable.
13. The respondent also maintains that it required a written request to view the dispatch records because some searching would have been required to locate the 40 to 80 dispatch record cards meeting the complainant's request, and a written request would have helped in that search.
14. It is concluded that nothing in 1-19(a), G.S., requires any person to put a request to inspect records in writing.
15. Specifically, it is concluded that, while nothing in the Freedom of Information Act (the "Act") prohibits the respondent from making records that enable it to comply with the Act, nothing in the Act permits the respondent to require the complainant himself to make such records as a condition to the respondent's compliance with the Act.
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by requiring the complainant to reduce to writing his requests to view or listen to public records.
Docket #FIC 90-166 Page three
17. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to order an educational workshop for the respondents, or to impose a civil penalty against them.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S., particularly as set forth in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the findings above.
2. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with access to the records described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 24, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-166 Page four
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:
JOHN WARD
18 Garamella Boulevard
Danbury, CT 06810
DANBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o Laszlo L. Pinter, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
155 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission