FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-023 | ||
|
Patricia Froehlich, State’s Attorney, State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Windham; and Judith Rossi, Executive Assistant State’s Attorney, State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, |
|||
| Respondents | October 9, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 20, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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. For purposes of this case, it is found that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated January 13, 2002, the complainant made a request to the respondents for a copy of:
a. an arrest warrant affidavit form, a complaint form, a witness statement form, and all similar instruments, regardless of format, used during the last twenty years in connection with §1-210(e)(2), G.S., investigations; and
b. all records pertaining to §1-210(e)(2), G.S., investigations conducted during the last twenty years.
3. By letter dated January 15, 2002, the respondent executive assistant state’s attorney responded to the complainant’s request by informing him that:
a. “arrest warrant affidavit” forms and “complaint” forms are not documents generated by the Division of Criminal Justice;
b. the Division of Criminal Justice does not require that witness or victim statements and complaints be generated on any specific form or in any specific format; and
c. the criminal and investigative files of the Division of Criminal Justice are not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.
4. By letter dated January 17, 2002 and filed on January 18, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with his request. The complainant requested that this Commission impose the maximum civil penalty against the respondents.
5. At the hearing on this matter and in his letter of complaint, the complainant clarified that he was specifically requesting blank copies of the forms described in paragraph 2, above.
6. With respect to the complainant’s request in general, §1-210(e)(2), provides in relevant a part that:
. . . disclosure shall be required of . . . all records of investigation conducted with respect to any tenement house, lodging house or boarding house as defined in section 19a-355, or any nursing home, residential care home or rest home, as defined in section 19a-490, by any municipal building department or housing code inspection department, any local or district health department, or any other department charged with the enforcement of ordinances or laws regulating the erection, construction, alteration, maintenance, sanitation, ventilation or occupancy of such buildings . . .
7. It is found that the respondents do not conduct the type of investigations described in §1-210(e)(2), G.S., and therefore do not maintain any records responsive to the complainant’s requests.
8. It is also found that, with respect to the complainant’s request described specifically in paragraph 2a, above, the respondents do not generate or otherwise create arrest warrant affidavit forms, witness statement forms or complaint forms and therefore do not maintain any record of such forms that may have been used over the past twenty years that are blank.
9. It is found, however, that the respondents do maintain blank complaint forms that are presently used by the respondents, and at the hearing on this matter, the respondent executive assistant state’s attorney agreed to provide the complainant with a copy of those forms.
10. Also at the hearing on this matter, the complainant indicated the he wished to withdraw his complaint with respect to his request described in paragraph 2a, above, based up respondent executive assistant state’s attorney’s agreement to provide him with the records described in paragraph 9, above.
11. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.
12. The complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty is denied.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 2002.
_______________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Steven Edelman
Frog Pond
Windham Center, CT 06280
Patricia Froehlich, State’s Attorney,
State of Connecticut, Judicial District
of Windham
120 School Street
Danielson, CT 06239
Judith Rossi, Executive Assistant
State’s Attorney,
State of Connecticut, Division of
Criminal Justice, Office of the Chief
State’s Attorney
300 Corporate Place
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-023/FD/paj/10/10/2002