FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 21, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated June 19, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of the following records [hereinafter “the requested records”]: any audio or video tapes of the complainant; any press releases in which the deputy chief accused the complainant of “faking his pain;” any audio or video tapes of the complainant at the police station being booked and put into a cell; any video tapes of the complainant in police cars; all mug shots of the complainant taken at the police station; any and all surveillances that may have been conducted by phone and other means; and any documentation not available at the respondent’s records department. 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated June 24, 2002, the respondent responded to the request described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainant that the Enfield Police Department has no audio or video tapes of the complainant; that there are no press releases regarding the complainant’s pain; that there are no video tapes of the complainant’s booking or being placed in a cell; that there are no documents relative to surveillances of the complainant; that the complainant could receive a copy of his mug shots upon payment of a fee; and that the request for documentation not available at the records department is vague and overbroad.  The respondent asked that the complainant clarify such request.

 

4.  By undated letter filed with the Commission on July 3, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying the complainant copies of the requested records.      

 

5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[e]xcept 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….

 

6.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

7.  It is found that the complainant’s request for documentation not available at the records department is vague and overbroad.  It is also found that, other than mug shots of the complainant, the respondent does not maintain or keep on file any of the other requested records described in paragraph 2, above, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent’s June 24, 2002 offer to provide the complainant with copies of his mug shots upon payment of a fee was in compliance with §1-210(a), G.S.

 

9.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint. 

 

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

April 9, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Patrick J. Danford

8 Booth Road

Enfield, CT 06082

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Enfield

c/o Maria Stavropoulos, Esq.

Town Attorney, Town of Enfield

820 Enfield Street

Enfield, CT 06082

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-294FD/abg/04/11/2003