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 2007-575, James Torlai v. Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck; Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck; Chief, Police Department, Town of Middlebury; and Police Department, Town of Middlebury.

           

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.  It is found that, by letter dated November 13, 2007, the complainant requested certain information related to a July 27^th roadblock on Rt. 63.  Specifically, the complainant stated, “please let me know if the following items are available and how I can obtain copies[:]

 

[a].  The evaluation report.

[b].  A diagram of the roadblock showing the positions of all signs, chase vehicles, persons, the holding area, etc.  Also documents that would describe the signs used.

[c].  A list of everyone who was at the roadblock and their assignments.  If you can indicate the two contact officers who interviewed me I would appreciate it.

[d].  Your department’s policies, procedures, and guidelines related to detaining citizens without suspicion when they have indicated a desire to leave and go about their business.”

 

 

3.  By letter dated December 10, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission,  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, to the extent that the requested records exist, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents testified that, upon receipt of, and in response to, the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above, a copy of an incident report, dated July 27, 2007, and an activity log, were sent to the complainant by “personnel in the mail room,” on approximately November 15, 2007.  The respondents further testified that no cover letter to the complainant was enclosed with such copies.  

 

8.  The complainant testified at the hearing in this matter that he did not receive any records from the respondents in November, 2007.

 

9.  It is found that the complainant did not receive any response from the respondents in November 2007.

 

10.  It is found that, on December 28, 2007, after the complainant made another request to the respondents for records,[1] the respondents provided copies of certain records, including the incident report and the activity log referenced in paragraph 7, above, to the complainant.  It is found that such incident report and activity log are responsive to the requests described in paragraph 2[c], above.  However, it is also found that, in providing such records to the complainant almost six weeks after the request for such records was made, the respondents’ response was not prompt, as required by §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of the FOI Act.  

 

 

12.  With respect to the requests for records described in paragraphs 2[a], 2[b] and 2[d], it is found that no such records exist.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged with respect to such requests.

 

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

            1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.                                        

           

 

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; and Police Department,

Borough of Naugatuck

c/o Michael McGoldrick, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT 06103 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-674FD/paj/4/29/2008