FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Jeffrey P. Robertson,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-156

 

State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, State Police Academy,

 

                        Respondent                  February 24, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 30, 1992, 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 filed May 14, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his April 22 oral request and April 24 written request for certain records had been denied.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant through his attorney orally asked the respondent on or about April 22, 1992 for a copy of a state trooper's certification to operate an intoximeter.

 

            4.         It is found that the record described in paragraph 3, above, is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent instructed the complainant's attorney to file a written request for copies, but was initially willing to look up the record and report what it said.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondent subsequently returned and reported that he could not look up the record at that time.

 

            7.         It is found, as a matter of reasonable inference drawn from all the facts, that the respondent had in fact searched for the record and had not been able to locate a current certification, and withheld that information from the complainant's attorney.

 

Docket #FIC 92-156                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is found that the complainant through his attorney then requested a copy of a state trooper's certification to operate a toximeter as of March 11, 1992, by letter dated April 24, 1992.

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent acknowledged receipt of the request by letter dated April 29, 1992, indicating that it was seeking the advice of counsel.

 

            10.       It is found that the respondent then by letter dated May 6, 1992 advised the complainant that "there are no records relating to your request maintained or kept on file by our Department."

 

            11.       It is found that on July 30, 1992, following the filing of the complaint in this matter and needless additional correspondence between the parties, that the respondent supplied the complainant with copies of the trooper's most recent certification, which had expired in 1986.

 

            12.       The complainant maintains that the respondent deliberately withheld the fact that the trooper's certification had expired, in order to prejudice the complainant's defense to his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

 

            13.       The respondent maintains that the individual responsible for responding to the complainant's request was not familiar with requests that were not accomplished through discovery and subpoena.

 

            14.       It is found that the respondent's May 6 response to the complainant was, at best, inadvertently misleading.

 

            15.       It is also found, however, that the respondent in fact had no record of current certification of the trooper.

 

            16.       It is also found that the respondent's May 6 letter was directed to an attorney, who could have read between the lines in this case.

 

            17.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-15, G.S., by its response.

 

            18.       The Commission notes that the respondent was capable of framing a clear and coherent response to the complainant's request, which it ultimately did on July 30, 1992, some three months after the complainant's request.  The Commission advises the respondent that comparable equivocating responses, if directed to lay persons, would not be viewed as leniently as in this case.

 

Docket #FIC 92-156                           Page 3

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 24, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-156                           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:

Jeffrey P. Robertson

c/o Atty. Vincent T. McManus, Jr.

116 South Main Street

Wallingford, CT 06492

 

State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police, State Police Academy

c/o Asst. Atty. Gen. Martin Rosenfeld

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission