FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Francis M. Dinoto,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-363
New London Police Department,
Respondent August 9, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 19, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 with this Commission on October 14, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to fully comply with his request for copies of public records.
3. By letter dated August 29, 1994, the complainant requested that the respondent supply to him copies of any records, on any media, with his name on it in the respondent's possession.
4. By letter dated September 13, 1995, the respondent indicated that records would be made available to the complainant upon his payment of $.50 per page.
5. It is found that the records requested by the complainant and identified in paragraph 3, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
6. It is found that by letter dated September 17, 1994, the complainant forwarded payment to the respondent and also indicated that the respondent's records clerk had already indicated to him that the only records available were incident reports of "minor problems." The complainant requested a more thorough search based on his observations of records supplied at a prior public hearing.
7. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant indicated his belief that the respondent had withheld some records that were responsive to his request.
Docket #FIC 94-363 Page 2
8. It is also found that certain records that had been erased previously by the respondent were in fact later resubmitted to the respondent by the complainant as attachments to his correspondence.
9. It is found that the respondent failed to supply to the complainant a copy of March 15, 1989 letters from the chief of police to the state police commissioner and to Mr. Dinoto to which were attached eight pages consisting of incident reports, supplemental reports an interdepartmental memorandum and a pistol permit.
10. It is concluded that the respondent's failure more fully outlined in paragraph 9, above, constitutes a violation of 1-15(a), G.S.
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 1-15(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 9, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-363 Page 3
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. Francis M. Dinoto
329 Broad Street #3
New London, CT 06320
New London Police Department
c/o Thomas J. Londregan, Esq.
Conway & Londregan, P.C.
38 Huntington Street
P.O. Box 1351
New London, CT 06320-1351
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission