FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Walter F. Carneglia,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-170
Norwalk Police Department,
Respondent March 27, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 30, 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. It
is found that by letter dated May 1, 1995 ("May request"), the
complainant requested copies of records pertaining to his application for a
Norwalk pistol permit, to wit: a) his pistol permit application file, b)
Connecticut State Police ("state police") fingerprint application and
background check information, c) FBI fingerprint request, and d) the letter
sent to Connecticut's Department of Public Safety requesting that his state
pistol permit be revoked ("revocation letter").
3. By
letter of complaint dated May 16, 1995, and filed May 23, 1995, the complainant
appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to,
or comply with his records request.
4. The
complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties in accordance with
1-21i(b)(2), G.S.
5. The
respondent does not dispute that the requested records should have been
provided to the complainant, as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-170 Page
2
6. However,
the respondent contends that it never received the complainant's May request,
and that is the only reason that there was no compliance.
7. The
respondent further states that the complainant made several records
requests--two prior written requests and an oral request--all of which were
received and complied with by the respondent.
8. At
the hearing on this case, the respondent provided the complainant with those
documents that are responsive to his records request, as more fully described
in paragraphs 2(a) through 2(c), above.
9. With
respect to the revocation letter, described in paragraph 2(d), above, it is
found that late in July 1995, the respondent had occasion to inform the
complainant that the letter did exist but had been sent to the state
police. The respondent advised the
complainant to request a copy of the revocation letter from the state police.
10. It is found that the complainant requested that
the state police provide him with a copy of the revocation letter, and early in
August 1995, he received a copy of the letter from them.
11. It
is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with copies of
the requested records.
12. The
Commission declines to impose a civil penalty under the facts and circumstances
of this case.
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 requirements of 1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-170 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:
Walter F. Carneglia
P.O. Box 852
Norwalk, CT 06852-0852
Norwalk Police Department
c/o M. Jeffrey Spahr, Esq.
P.O. Box 798
South Norwalk, CT 06855
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission