FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Jeffery Moore,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-411

Robert M. Ward, Commissioner,

State of Connecticut,

Department of Motor Vehicles;

State of Connecticut,

Department of Motor Vehicles;

Harry Rilling, Chief,

Police Department,

City of Norwalk; and

Police Department,

City of Norwalk,

 
  Respondents July 9, 2008
       

            

The complainant withdrew the portion of his complaint against the Department of Motor Vehicle respondents on January 30, 2008.  The above-captioned matter was then heard as a contested case on March 25, 2008, at which time the complainant and the Norwalk respondents 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 Norwalk respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed July 27, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the Norwalk respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to reply to his request for public records.

 

            3.  It is found that the complainant made a written request dated July 23, 2007   for records related to his arrest, and the search incident to that arrest.

 

4.  It is found that the Norwalk respondents provided records responsive to the request on October 11, 2007.

 

5.  It is found that one of the records provided was an incident report of the complainant’s arrest, but with the names of two individuals in a car with the complainant redacted.

 

6.  It is also found that, following the filing of the complaint in this matter, the Norwalk respondents on January 29, 2008 provided two additional records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

7.  It is found that the two additional records were not located in the Norwalk respondents’ general records area, but in the records of the division of special services.

 

8.  It is found that the Norwalk respondents provided the complainant all the records in their custody that were in any way responsive to the complainant’s request, with the exception of the redacted names described in paragraph 5, above.

 

9.  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.

 

10.  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.

 

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

 

12.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

13.  The Norwalk respondents contend that they promptly provided the requested records, because they were responding to a request dated October 2, 2007, and provided records on October 11, 2007.

 

14.  It is found, however, that the complainant had also made a request dated July 23, 2007, to which the Norwalk respondents did not reply. 

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the Norwalk respondents did not promptly provide the requested records. 

 

16.  The Norwalk respondents contend that the redacted names should not be provided, because the named individuals were not charged with a crime.

 

17.  It is concluded, however, that the Norwalk respondents failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure.

 

18. It is concluded that the Norwalk respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to provide the redacted names described in paragraph 5, above. 

 

19. The complainant contends that not all the requested records were provided, that certain records that don’t exist should exist, and that some of the records requested were not properly executed.

 

20.  It is concluded, however, that the Norwalk respondents conducted a diligent search for the requested records, provided all the requested records to the complainant, and were clear in explaining to the complainant what records did and did not exist.

 

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

 

            1.  The Norwalk respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the incident report previously supplied to him, at no cost.

 

            2.  Henceforth the Norwalk respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement contained in §1-210(a), G.S.    

 

3.  The remainder of the complaint is dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 9, 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:

 

Jeffery Moore

Maple Street Halfway Home

575 Maple Street

Bridgeport, CT 06608

           

Robert M. Ward, Commissioner,

State of Connecticut,

Department of Motor Vehicles

55 West Main Street

Waterbury, CT 06702

 

State of Connecticut,

Department of Motor Vehicles

55 West Main Street

Waterbury, CT 06702

 

Harry Rilling, Chief,

Police Department,

City of Norwalk; and

Police Department,

City of Norwalk

c/o M. Jeffry Spahr, Esq.

Deputy Corporation Counsel

City of Norwalk

City Hall

PO Box 798

Norwalk, CT 06856-0798

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-411FD/paj/7/14/2008