FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 3, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See  Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 

 

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 April 13, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with a copy of records related to “any police reports or notes,” concerning a complaint “made against me by Roshan Patel and Webster Bank.”  The complainant requested records indicating the names of police department employees who received information about the complainant from Mr. Patel, the dates of such communications, whether information was forwarded to the State’s Attorney’s office, and whether any police officers visited Webster Bank to investigate Mr. Patel’s allegations.

 

3.      By letter dated April 25, 2007 and filed on April 30, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request for copies of records.

 

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

 

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 . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

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

 

6.      It is found that, upon receipt of the complainant’s request, the respondent directed a records clerk for the Branford Police Department to perform an extensive search of the respondent’s computer database. It is found that the search produced a 6-page printout of a numerical list of all police reports involving Webster Bank, Roshan Patel, and the complainant.

 

7.      It is found that the printout of reports involving Webster Bank consists of three-and-one-half pages of numbers listed single space, referencing different police reports concerning Webster Bank in some capacity.  It is found that the printout of reports involving Roshan Patel consists of a single report of a motor vehicle infraction.  It is found that the printout of reports involving the complainant consists of a list of 23 numbers referencing different police reports concerning the complainant.

 

8.        It is found that the records clerk examined each of the reports corresponding to the numbers on the printout to determine whether any of the reports were responsive to the records requested by the complainant.

 

9.       It is found that the records clerk, at the respondent’s direction, performed a diligent search for the records.

 

10.    It is found that none of the reports referenced in the printout were responsive to the records requested by the complainant.

 

11.    It is found that, by letter dated July 3, 2007, the respondent informed the complainant that he had directed his clerical staff to search for the records that the complainant sought, but that the result of the search led the respondent to conclude that the Branford Police Department has no records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

12.   Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

 

 

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 24, 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:

 

Edan F. Calabrese, #304438

Bergin Correctional Institution

251 Middle Turnpike

Storrs, CT 06268

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Branford

c/o Shelley A. Marcus, Esq.

The Marcus Law Firm

111 Whitney Avenue

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-256FD/paj/11/6/2007