FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 14, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondent submitted the record described in paragraph 5 of the findings, below, for an in camera inspection.

 

            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.  By letter of complaint filed January 26, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his requests for public records.

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated September 7, 2006, the complainant requested a copy of “the file of the criminal complaint case ‘DPS #06-0135019,’ date of complaint 03-24-06, along with the application of warrant to the GAE court with the name of the prosecutor who denied the warrant.”

 

4.  It is found that the respondent denied the September 7, 2006 request in early October, 2007, on the grounds that the investigation was not completed.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent, on December 22, 2006 provided records of the requested criminal case, consisting of an incident report, certain documentary evidence relating to the respondent’s investigation, and a witness statement.

 

6.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated December 23, 2006, asserted that some of the report was missing, and requested “the rest of the report,” including:

 

a.       Cover letter;

b.      Affidavit of Trooper Hopping #1305, stating probable cause;

c.       Application for arrest warrant;

d.      Name of prosecutor;

e.       Status of warrant and court of jurisdiction; and

f.        Any other documents pertinent to the report.

 

7.  It is found that the respondent in January 2007 provided some supplementary records responsive to the complainant’s September 7, 2006 request, including the second page of the incident report that had been inadvertently omitted, but not including the records and information requested on December 23, 2006.

 

8.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

9.  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 (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. 

 

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

 

11.  It is found that the respondent conducted a diligent search for any records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

12.  It is found that the records described in paragraphs 6.a, 6.b, 6.c, and 6.f, above, do not, and never did, exist.

 

13.  It is found the request described in paragraph 6.d, above, for the name of the prosecutor involved in the respondent’s investigation, is in fact recited on the second page of the incident report provided to the complainant. 

 

14.  It is found the request described in paragraph 6.e, above, is a request for information, not for public records.  Moreover, it is found that the requested information, “the status of warrant and court of jurisdiction,” is based on the complainant’s mistaken belief that a warrant was applied for and that a prosecution ensued.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 2008.

 

 

________________________________

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:

 

Patrick McCue

6F Herman Drive

East Granby, CT 06026

           

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2294

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-055FD/paj/1/24/2008