FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Patricia A. Conrad, Raymond Conrad, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-410 |
|
|
Chief, Police
Department, Town of |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
October 11, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 29, 2000, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public
agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. It is found that by letter
dated June 26, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent chief
provide them with:
a.
all reports, memoranda, tape recorded
telephone conversations, tape recorded radio communications, log entries, and
any other documents relating to an incident involving the police response on
June 17, 2000 to the complainants’ residence; and
b.
copies of any and all case/incident reports, log entries,
and complaints concerning Patricia, Raymond,
Christopher and Carrie Conrad, and the address of 864
Strong Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074.
3. It is found that the
respondents provided the complainants with certain records, however, upon
receipt of such records the complainants notified the respondent chief, by
letter dated July 21, 2000, that the following records were missing:
i)
incident report/ complaint taken by
officer 155 about the abuse of blue lights;
ii)
report following complainants’ visit
and discussion with commander Martin during afternoon of June 17, 2000;
iii)
report following 1:00am visit to
complainants’ home by officer Riggs on June 20, 2000;
iv)
reports pertaining to gun shots in the
woods behind the complainants’ house, over the past twelve years.
The
complainants again requested the records described in paragraph 2a and 2b,
above, in their July 21, 2000 letter.
4. It is found that by letter
dated July 26, 2000, the respondent commander informed the complainants that
“you may pick up the material requested.”
5. It is found that on July 28,
2000 the complainants went to the respondents’ offices to pick up the
records and were told to pay $108 for the copies of records being provided.
The $108 included an hourly rate charge for the respondents’ employee
involved in compiling the records. The
complainants refused to pay the hourly rate charge and left without the
records.
6. By letter dated July 28, 2000
and filed on August 1, 2000, the complainants appealed to the
Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information
(“FOI”) Act by failing to a) provide all the records requested and
described in paragraph 2a and 2b, above,
and b) overcharging for copies of records.
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. [Emphasis added.]
8. It is concluded that the
records at issue, to the extent they exist, are public records within the
meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
9. With respect to the request
described in paragraph 2a, above, the respondent commander testified that
after searching all of the respondents’ records he was unable to identify or
locate any records, other than those already provided to the complainants,
concerning the June 17, 2000 incident at the complainants’ residence.
Specifically, in response to the complainants’ contention that a
complaint or incident report that led to the police response and visit to
their home on June 17, 2000 exists, the respondent commander indicated that no
such incident report or complaint exists.
10. With respect to the request
described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the records at issue are
the records the complainants went to pick up on July 28, 2000 and for which
they refused to pay $108. Those
records pertain to incidents that occurred during 1991, 1993 and 1994. The respondent commander indicated at the hearing in this
matter, that he now realizes that the complainants may only be charged the
statutory rate permitted for copies of records as set forth at §1-212(2), G.S.,
which rate is no more than fifty-cents per page.
It is concluded, that with respect to the issue of costs for copies,
the respondent commander, although unintentionally, violated §1-212(2), G.S.,
when he requested payment of $108 for the copies of records he was providing
to the complainants on July 28, 2000.
11. At the hearing on this
matter, the complainants indicated that they also believe the following
records exist and have not been provided to them by the respondents: a tape
recording of their conversation with officer Thompson; report of a June 1,
2000 conversation with commander Lewis and a 1999 complaint filed by their
neighbor.
12. It is concluded that to the
extent the records described in paragraph 11 exist, such records are public
records, and are subject to public disclosure pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the
respondent commander shall conduct a thorough search of the hard paper copy,
tape-recorded (telephone and radio) communications, as well as computer stored
records of the South Windsor Police Department to ascertain definitively
whether any records that fall within the complainants’ request, as described
in paragraphs 2, 3 and 11, of the findings above, exist that have not been
provided to them. Upon completion of
such search, if records are located, they shall be provided to the
complainants immediately. If no
records are located, the respondent commander shall forthwith so inform the
complainants in a written affidavit attesting to the fact that following a
complete and thorough search of the records of the South Windsor Police
Department no records exist other than those already provided to the
complainants.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 2000.
_________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Patricia A. Conrad, Raymond Conrad,
and
Christopher Conrad,
864
Strong Road
South
Windsor, CT 06074
Chief, Police Department, Town of
South Windsor; and Commander, Police
Department, Town of South Windsor,
Technical Services Division
c/o Commander Hart
Police Department
Town of South Windsor
151 Sand Hill Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
__________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-410FD/mes10162000