FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 17, 2007, 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 written request dated March 13, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of complete reports for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, in reference to Joseph A. Woodrow, Barbara Woodrow or anyone at 11 Mill Street in New Milford, including incidents, motor vehicle incidents, and complaints. 

 

3.  It is found that, on March 14, 2007, the respondent provided the complainant with copies of the requested records.  

 

4.  By letter dated and postmarked April 14, 2007, and thus filed with the Commission on such date, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying her copies of complete reports, especially relative to a March 15, 1999 incident report.  

 

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 records described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, are public records, within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the March 15, 1999 incident report described in paragraph 4, above, is inaccurate, is missing information, and has been altered. 

 

9.  It is found, however, that the respondent provided the complainant with all requested records, which he maintains, within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.  It is further found that the respondent did not alter the March 15, 1999, incident report. 

 

10.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that she wished copies of police officer notes of the March 15, 1999 incident.  It is found that such records are not within the scope of the request described in paragraph 2, above.  Nevertheless, at the hearing in this matter, the respondent pledged to search for such notes and, if such notes still exist, provide the complainant with copies thereof.

 

11.  It is concluded the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, 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 without prejudice.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 10, 2007.

 

 

________________________________

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:

 

Barbara Woodrow

PO Box 1617

New Milford, CT 06776

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of New Milford

49 Poplar Street

New Milford, CT 06776

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-232FD/paj/10/17/2007