FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Shirley Vigneri,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 1996-047
Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety and, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety,
Respondent(s) October 16, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 12, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC1996-048, Shirley Vigneri v. Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety and Detective Michael Bochicchio, Special Licensing & Firearms Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police.
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 dated February 10, 1996, and filed with this Commission on February 13, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19, G.S., by failing to provide copies of specified public records, and by imposing “a capricious and arbitrary condition to obtaining public records.” The complainant requested that the Commission impose the maximum civil penalty upon the individual respondent.
3. It is found that by letter dated January 24, 1996 (“first request”), the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with copies of “all documents, records, warrants, orders and similar instruments, including, but not limited to, papers and tape recorded conversations relating to Case Number: K95-103887” (“her case”).
4. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
5. Section 1-15(a), G.S., states in
relevant part that:
[a]ny person
applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain
or certified copy
of any public record.
6. It is found that by letter dated January 31, 1996 respondent Gore informed the complainant that there were ten pages of records that were responsive to her first request, that prepayment of the copying fee of two dollars and fifty cents (“fee”) was required, as well as a “written assurance [from her] that the information [provided was] not for use in pending litigation to which the state is a party,” (“precondition”).
7. It is found that on or about February 6, 1996, respondent Gore mailed a copy of the requested case records to the complainant after she paid the fee and complied with the precondition.
8. It is found that the precondition that respondent Gore imposed upon the complainant is not permitted under the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.
9. It is concluded that the respondent Gore violated the provisions of §1-15(a), G.S., by failing to promptly comply with the complainant’s first request without an impermissible precondition.
10. It is found that by letter dated January
28, 1996 (“second request”), the complainant requested that the respondents
provide her with a copy of “all tape recorded conversations relating to her
case.”
11. It is found that by letter dated January 30, 1996 (“third request”), the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with a copy of “the videotape recorded on July 9, 1995 relating to [her case], and also all tape recorded conversations relating to [her case].”
12. By letter dated February 5, 1996, the respondent Gore advised the complainant that the videotape sought in her third request was not available because “[v]ideo and audio tapes are only kept for two months.”
13. It is found that the requested videotapes and audio tapes are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
14. It is found that the respondents’ approved record retention schedule permits the recycling and reuse of audio tapes and videotapes after sixty (60) days.
15. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-15(a), G.S., with respect to the July 9, 1995 tapes because they are no longer available.
16. With respect to any other audio or videotapes that are responsive to the complainant’s second and third requests, the respondents have failed to prove that either the tapes are unavailable or that they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to a federal law or state statute in accordance with the provisions of §1-19(a), G.S.
17. It is found that respondent Gore’s violation of the complainant’s rights conferred under §1-15(a), G.S., concerning her case records was without reasonable grounds.
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 strictly comply with the access and disclosure provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. Within forty-five days of the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case the respondent Gore shall remit to this Commission a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case the respondents shall schedule and attend an educational workshop on the FOI Act at the Commission’s offices located at 18-20 Trinity Street, 1st Floor, Hartford, Connecticut. The attendance of those persons who are responsible for compliance with FOI Act requests is required.
4. With respect to the July 9, 1995 tapes at issue in this case, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
5. With respect to any other tapes that are responsive to the complainant’s records requests, within ten (10) days of the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case the respondent shall either provide the complainant with copies of any existing tapes, or an affidavit attesting to the fact that a diligent search was conducted and no tapes exist.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 16, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Shirley Vigneri
c/o Scott & Scott
PO Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety and, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety,
c/o Ann E. Lynch, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
NOTICE REGARDING DOCKET #FIC
1996-047 (FICAP #1996-027):
BY
ORDER OF THE COURT IN CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF
STATE POLICE AND GERALD GORE V. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION AND SHIRLEY
VIGNERI, DOCKET NO. CV96-0565901, SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD (MCWEENY, J.), DATED AUGUST 25, 1997, THE
ORDERS IN THIS MATTER WERE VACATED AND THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
_____________________ January 24, 2000
Mitchell
W. Pearlman Date
Executive
Director
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _