FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Michael J. Latosh,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-49
Chief of Police, Stamford Police Department; and Stamford Police Commission,
Respondents August 25, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 22, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed February 25, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his January 22, 1993 requests for certain records had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainant applied to the respondent chief of police for a permit to carry a pistol in April of 1992.
4. It is found that the deputy chief of investigations notifed the complainant on June 1, 1992 that the permit application had been denied.
5. It is found that the complainant appealed that denial to the state board of firearms permit examiners.
6. It is found that the board of firearms permit examiners issued a decision dated September 8, 1992, finding no just and proper cause for the denial of a pistol permit, and ordering the respondent chief to issue a permit to the complainant.
7. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated December 18, 1992, complained to the respondent police commission about the deputy chief's actions in denying the permit, and requested an internal investigation.
Docket #FIC 93-49 Page 2
8. It is found that the respondent police commission held a regular meeting on January 4, 1993, at which it considered the complainant's December 18, 1992 letter.
9. It is found that the chairman of the respondent, by letter dated January 6, 1993, notifed the complainant that the police commission had evaluated the matter, found that the permit denial was not arbitrary or capricious, and ordered that the matter be closed.
10. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated January 22, 1993 to the respondent chief of police, requested copies of any and all reports concerning the deputy chief's investigation of the complainant's suitability for a pistol permit.
11. It is found that the respondent chief maintains a file of all documents concerning the complainant's application for a pistol permit.
12. It is concluded that the documents concerning the complainant's application for a pistol permit are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
13. It is found that the respondent chief did not respond to the complainant's January 22, 1993 request.
14. The chief maintains that he did not understand the January 22, 1993 request to be a "Freedom of Information [FOI]" request.
15. It is found, however, that the January 22, 1993 request to the chief is clearly a request for copies of documents.
16. Section 1-21i(a), G.S., provides that any denial of the right to copy records shall be made in writing within four business days of such request.
17. It is therefore concluded that the respondent chief violated 1-21i(a), G.S., by failing to issue a written denial within four business days of the request.
18. The chief also maintains that he believed that the complainant already had copies of the requested documents, and that therefore it was unnecessary to respond to his request, particularly since the complainant had prevailed on his appeal of the permit denial.
19. At the hearing, the respondent chief offered as evidence the file of all documents concerning the complainant's application for a pistol permit, and the complainant was then finally able to compare the documents in his possession with the documents on file.
Docket #FIC 93-49 Page 3
20. It is found that, although the file contained documents that the complainant did not have copies of, the file did not contain any documents actually responsive to the complainant's request that the complainant had not already independently obtained.
21. It is concluded, however, that the complainant's possession of copies of documents or motivation for seeking them is not under the circumstances of this case a defense to a failure to provide such documents.
22. It is concluded that the respondent chief violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of public records promptly upon request.
23. It is also found that the complainant, by letter dated January 22, 1993 to the respondent police commission, requested a copy or transcript of the proceedings of any meetings involving the commission's evaluation of the complainant's December 18, 1992 complaint against the deputy chief.
24. It is found that the respondent police commission made and maintained minutes of its January 4, 1993 meeting.
25. It is concluded that the minutes of the police commission's January 4, 1993 meeting are a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
26. It is also found that the respondent police commission never responded to the complainant's request.
27. It is concluded that the respondent commission violated 1-21i(a), G.S., by failing to issue a written denial within four business days of the request.
28. The respondent police commission maintains that the minutes of its meeting are no more, if not less, informative than its January 6, 1993 letter to the complainant, in which the commission informed the complainant that the matter had been evaluated and ordered closed.
29. It is concluded, however, that the lack of information in the respondent commission's minutes is no defense to the commission's failure to provide them.
30. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent police commission violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide, promptly upon request, copies of public records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 93-49 Page 4
1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., concerning prompt provision of public records, and the requirements of 1-21i(a), G.S., concerning the issuance of written denials.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 25, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-49 Page 5
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:
Michael J. Latosh
120 Riverbank Drive
Stamford, CT 06903
Chief of Police, Stamford Police Department and Stamford Police Commission
c/o Atty. Barry Boodman
810 Bedford Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission