FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

  

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 10, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2007-674, James Torlai v. Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck; and Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck.

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  At the hearing in this matter, the plaintiff testified that he requested, by separate letters addressed to the respondent Naugatuck Police Department and the respondent Middlebury Police Department, each dated October 2, 2007, “a copy of the evaluation report/s for the July 27, 2007 roadblock.”   

 

3.  Having received no response to his requests, the complainant appealed to the Commission, by letter dated October 20, 2007, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

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

 

5.  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” (emphasis added).

 

6.  It is found that the respondents did not receive the complainant’s October 2, 2007 letters of request, described in paragraph 2, above, and that the complainant did not follow up on the status of such requests by telephone.

 

7.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the evidence in Docket #FIC 2007-674, James Torlai v. Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck; and Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck.  Based upon such evidence, it is further found that the evaluation report, requested by the complainant, described in paragraph 2, above, does not exist.

 

8.  It is concluded that the respondents 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.                                      

           

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 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:

 

James Torlai

127 Barton Street

Torrington, CT 06790

           

Chief, Police Department, Borough

of Naugatuck; Police Department,

Borough of Naugatuck

c/o Michael McGoldrick, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT 06103 

 

Chief, Police Department, Town of Middlebury;

and Police Department, Town of Middlebury

c/o Stephen L. Savarese, Esq.

Hall & Savarese, P.C.

43 Main Street

PO Box 395

Newtown, CT 06470

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-575FD/paj/4/29/2008