FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John Matava and Jennifer Matava,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 91-319
Torrington Police Department,
Respondent September 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 16, 1992, at which time the complainants 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 dated September 18, 1991 the complainant requested from the respondent:
a. Copies of any police calls for assistance or complaints, dispatch sheets, police reports and action taken from or to 23 White Pine Road in Torrington, between November 1, 1989 and July 31, 1990;
b. Copies of any police calls for assistance or complaints, dispatch sheets, police reports and action taken from 836 Main Street in Torrington, between February 1 and June 30, 1991
c. Copies of any police transmissions to and from any officers dispatched for any of the incidents described in subparagraphs a. and b.,above; and
Docket #FIC 91-319 Page 2
d. the names of any police officer of official who had input in any action taken for the incidents described in subparagraphs a. and b.,above.
3. It is found that the respondent did not respond to the complainants' September 18, 1991 request for records (hereinafter "September request").
4. By letter filed September 27, 1991, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to their September request.
5. It is concluded that the records and information sought by the complainants in their September request are public records, or information contained therein, within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
6. It is found that in May 1991 the complainants made an initial request to the respondent for essentially the same records requested in their September request and that in June 1991 the respondent provided copies of several case reports, responsive to that request.
7. The respondent maintains that it did not respond to the complainants' September request because it felt it had complied with their earlier request and because it had no additional records to provide to them.
8. At the hearing on this matter, however, the respondent provided the complainants with two additional case reports that the respondent located sometime just prior to the hearing.
9. The respondent maintains that the two additional reports provided to the complainants at hearing were not provided to the complainants prior thereto, because the case reports were listed under another individual's name and therefore were not located at the time of the initial search for the records, which was conducted using the complainants' names.
10. It is found that the respondent's case files and reports are listed by names of persons involved in the subject case, rather than by property location, as identified by the complainants in their September request, and that the respondent would not be able to locate the requested records through a search by location only.
Docket #FIC 91-319 Page 3
11. The complainants maintain that they are still seeking copies of seven reports, even with the additional two reports provided by the respondent at hearing.
12. At hearing the respondent indicated its willingness to help locate any additional records that may be listed under other individuals' mames.
13. It is found that in spite of the respondent's earlier efforts to satisfy the complainants' records request in June 1991 and its belief that it had no additional records to provide, the respondent had an obligation under 1-21i(a), G.S, to respond in writing to the complainants' September request within four business days.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21i(a), G.S., by failing to respond to the complainants' September request.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21i(a), G.S.
2. The Commission acknowledges the respondent's efforts to locate more of the requested records in preparation for the hearing on this matter and recognizes that it was only able to locate the two additional files provided at hearing, described in paragraph 8 of the findings, above. The Commission declines therefore to order the respondent to search its files again, unless the complainants can provide additional information to assist the respondent in its efforts.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of September 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-319 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:
JOHN MATAVA and JENNIFER MATAVA
P.O. Box 1602
Torrington, CT 06790
TORRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
140 Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission