FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Michael Paternoster,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-208

 

Milford Police Department and Milford City Attorney,

 

                        Respondents                 December  22, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 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.         It is found that on or about April 23, 1993, the complainant was involved in an incident at a store called COSCO located in Milford, Connecticut, (hereinafter "COSCO incident").

 

            3.         It is found that although the COSCO incident resulted in Milford police being called to the scene, no arrests were made.

 

            4.         It is found that a summary of the responding police officers' notes were filed as a record of incident report, number 93-008040 (hereinafter "incident report").

 

            5.         It is found that on or about April 26, 1993, the complainant made an in person request for a copy of the incident report.  A computer print out of the incident report was given to him.

 

            6.         It is found that on or about April 26, 1993, the complainant filed a civilian complaint with the respondent department concerning the COSCO incident.

 

Docket #FIC 93-208                           Page 2

 

            7.         It is found that in connection with the respondent department's investigation into the complainant's civilian complaint, statements of the police officers involved in the COSCO incident were solicited and filed with the respondent department within days of the complainant's civilian complaint.

 

            8.         It is found that on or about May 5, 1993, Milford Police Chief Thomas Flaherty issued the decision in the complainant's civilian complaint matter by letter to the complainant.

 

            9.         By letters dated June 4, 1993 to Chief Flaherty, and June 17, 1993 to the respondent city attorney's office, the complainant requested copies of statements, documents and testimony presented by Inspectors Schultz and Sherman, and Officers Insalaco, McCormick and Piscitelli.

 

            10.       By letter dated June 23, 1993, the respondent city attorney replied to the complainant that the complainant's June 17, 1993 letter did not "apprise [her] of which specific records [he wished copied.]"  The complainant was further informed that "[i]f there is a particular incident report this material is connected to" a review of existing materials would be made and an authorization given for providing copies of specified records to the complainant "if appropriate".  (Emphasis added.)

 

            11.       By letters to each of the respondents dated July 9, 1993, the complainant indicated that the records that he was seeking pertained to "police report number 93-8040" and an April 23, 1993 incident.  The complainant further specified that he wanted copies of records "central to [his] complaint that influenced Chief Flaherty's decision," and he referenced his civilian complaint in the letter.

 

            12.       By reply letter dated July 14, 1993, the respondent city attorney advised the complainant that after reviewing "[p]olice [r]eport no. 938040 ... there was no internal investigation conducted and no statements from anyone in connection with [that] report."

 

            13.       Subsequently, by reply letter dated July 19, 1993, the respondent city attorney acknowledged that there were in fact "four memos which [were] responsive to [the complainant's] inquiry in connection with [his] civilain complaint."  Copies of the four memoranda were enclosed with the letter and the complainant was further advised that a copy of "Civilian Complaint Report MOR 8040-93 would be available to him at a cost of $3.50."

 

Docket #FIC 93-208                           Page 3

 

            14.       By letter of request hand-delivered to the respondent city attorney on July 21, 1993, the complainant reiterated his request for all records relating to his civilian complaint.

 

            15.       By reply letter dated July 22, 1993, the respondent city attorney "enclosed the "balance of material" that the complainant had requested.

 

            16.       By further reply dated July 26, 1993, the respondent city attorney informed the complainant that there was no additional documentation concerning the "testimony" of Inspector Schultz, and advised the complainant that he had been provided with all existing records.

 

            17.       By letter of complaint dated July 27, 1993, and filed with the Commission on July 28, 1993, the complainant appealed the respondents' failure to promptly and fully comply with his records requests.

 

            18.       At the hearing on this matter the respondents argued that they did not understand that the complainant was seeking records relating to his civilian complaint rather than the incident report for which no statements or other records existed.

 

            19.       It is found that the respondents should have reasonably understood that the complainant sought records and statements relating to his civilian complaint.

 

            20.       It is found that only through the complainant's tenacity did he obtain complianance with his records request, even after the respondents were able to identify the file and records at issue.

 

            21.       It is concluded that through a failure of communications the respondents technically violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S., by failing to promptly comply with the complainant's records requests.

 

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

 

            1.         Henceforth the respondents shall fully comply with 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 93-208                           Page 4

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 22, 1993.

 

                                                                  

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-208                           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:

Mr. Michael Paternoster

140 Wilcox Road

Milford, CT 06460

 

Milford Police Department and Milford City Attorney

c/o Marilyn J. Lipton, Esq.

Milford City Attorney

110 River Street

Milford, CT 06460

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission