FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Carl J. Miele,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 91-183

Naugatuck Police Department,

Respondent June 10, 1992

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 27, 1991, 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 filed with this Commission on June 21, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act by failing to review and destroy a tape and file concerning him pursuant to 1-20c, G.S.

3. It is found that by letter dated June 13, 1991, the complainant requested the file and tape concerning himself and any other data on him in its records.

4. It is found that by letter dated June 17, 1991, the respondent enclosed "copies of reports and incidents on file in the record room of the respondent concerning the complainant" to which the respondent believed the complainant was entitled under the FOI Act.

5. It is found that the complainant declined an invitation by the mayor and mayor's aid to listen to the tape and review the file contents in issue.

6. It is also found that by letter dated August 2, 1991 and received by the FOI Commission on August 14, 1991, the complainant reiterated that his goal in filing an FOI complaint was that the file and tape be destroyed after review pursuant to 1-20c, G.S.

Docket #FIC 91-183 Page 2

7. It is also found that the complainant's June 13, 1991 letter to the respondent fails to set forth a request that the respondent review and destroy the above-referenced tape and file pursuant to 1-20c, G.S.

8. It is concluded that due to the complainant's failure to request relief as provided by 1-20c, G.S., directly from the respondent, there was no denial from such request from which the complainant could appeal in his June 21, 1991 complaint. Accordingly, the Commission is without jurisdiction over the issue of review and destruction of records pursuant to 1-20, G.S., in the instant case.

9. The Commission also notes, however, that the complainant is not herein barred from appealing any possible denial to a future request to the respondent for relief under 1-20c, G.S.

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 June 10, 1992.

Karen J.Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 91-183 Page 2

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:

Mr. Carl J. Miele

11 Myrtle Avenue

Naugatuck, CT 06770

M. Leonard Caine, III

Caine & Caine

13 Rockwell Avenue

Naugatuck, CT 06770

Karen J.Haggett

Clerk of the Commission