FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Frederick Dowdy,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-340

 

Chief of Police, Wethersfield Police Department,

 

                                Respondent                          May 24, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 18, 1995, 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 dated August 25, 1994, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with an inventory of items seized from the complainant's residence pursuant to a search warrant and a copy of a report prepared by a private investigative service, in connection with the case of State of Connecticut v. Frederick Dowdy, CR93-144163 S.

 

                3.  By letter dated August 30, 1994, the respondent denied the complainant's request, stating that the information could not be released since the criminal matter against the complainant had not been disposed of and referring the complainant to the State's Attorney's Office.

 

                4.  By letter of complaint dated September 19, 1994, and filed on September 26, 1994, the complainant appealed the respondent's denial of access to the requested records to the Commission.

 

                5.  It is found that the requested investigative report was compiled at the direction of the complainant's spouse by a private detective and that the report was subsequently submitted to the respondent's department and utilized to secure a search warrant for the complainant's premises in December 1993.

 

Docket #FIC 94-340                                             Page 2

 

                6.  It is further found that the requested inventory is a list of items seized from the complainant's residence following the issuance of the search warrant.

 

                7.  It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                8.  1-19(a), G.S. provides in relevant part:

 

                                "Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute...every person shall have the right to inspect such [public] records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15..."

 

                9.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent maintained that he initially denied access to the requested records upon receipt of the complainant's request because he contacted the State's Attorney's office and was told that the criminal matter against the complainant was still pending; therefore, he did not make any records available to the complainant.

 

                10.  The respondent further maintained that upon notification by the Commission of the scheduling of the hearing in this matter, he again checked the status of the criminal matter and learned that the case had been dismissed.

 

                11.  It is found that the criminal charge against the complainant in case number CR93-144163 S was dismissed on or about February 1995.

 

                12.  With respect to the requested investigative report, the respondent now claims that such report was returned to the complainant's spouse by unknown personnel of the respondent's department at an unknown time, and that it is no longer in the possession of the respondent's department.

 

                13.  With respect to the requested inventory, the respondent now maintains that although the erasure provisions of 54-142(a) provide for the erasure of criminal records following a dismissal, the complainant is entitled access to it as he is the subject of the record.  The respondent stated that he would now make the inventory available to him.

 

Docket #FIC 94-340                                             Page 3

 

                14.  It is found, however, that the issue before the Commission is not whether the complainant may have access to the requested records now but whether or not such records should have been provided to him at the time of his August 25, 1994 request.

 

                15.  It is further found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or pursuant to any federal law or state statute at the time of the complainant's request.

 

                16.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the requested records to the complainant promptly upon receipt of his August 25, 1994 request.

 

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

 

                1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant free-of-charge a copy of the requested inventory.

 

                2.  The respondent shall forthwith cause the records of his department to be searched in an effort to locate the requested investigative report.  In the event the respondent is unable to locate the investigative report, he shall forthwith provide the complainant with an affidavit setting forth the nature and extent of his search and any information he gleaned as a result of said search concerning the date the inventory was transferred from the respondent's possession and by whom.

 

                3.  The respondent is advised to review the records retention requirements of the State of Connecticut as administered by the State Records Administrator, Eunice DiBella, in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.

 

                4.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-340                                             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:

 

FREDERICK DOWDY

c/o Otto P. Witt, Esq.

Witt & Associates, P.C.

185 Silas Deane Highway

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

CHIEF OF POLICE, WETHERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Richard F. Clemens, Jr.

505 Silas Deane Highway

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Clerk of the Commission