FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Deborah Raney, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2008-159 | ||
|
Chief, Police Department, Town of East Hartford; and Police Department, Town of East Hartford, |
|||
| Respondents | August 27, 2008 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 22, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated December 16, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with answers to questions concerning the death of her daughter as well as copies of “statements from Calvin Morgan, Stacy Woods and Harold Hailey” and copies of all arrest records pertaining to her daughter.
3. It is also found that, by letter dated January 26, 2008, the complainant again requested that the respondents provide her with answers to the questions included in the requests described in paragraph 2, above. The complainant also included several additional questions in such letter.
4. It is further found that, by letter dated March 4, 2008, the complainant again specifically requested from the respondents records of her daughter’s arrests. The complainant also requested copies of 911 tapes pertaining to an April 4, 2007 incident involving the complainant’s daughter.
5. It is further found that, by separate letters dated March 4, 2008 to the respondents, the complainant further inquired about her requests described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above, requesting additional answers and information from the respondents.
6. By letter dated April 3, 2008 and filed with the Commission on April 4, 2008, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to answer questions submitted to the respondents and by denying her requests for copies of records described in paragraphs 2 and 4, above.
7. 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.
8. Section 1-210(a), G.S., states 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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
9. Section 1-212(a), G.S., states in relevant part that: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
10. It is found that, to the extent the requested records exist and are maintained by the respondents, such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
11. It is found that, by letter dated May 22, 2008, the respondents informed the complainant that they completed a records check on the complainant’s daughter and that responsive records were mailed to the complainant on March 5, 2008. In such letter, the respondents also apologized for not providing copies of the requested 911 tapes described in paragraph 4, above. The respondents stated that they had now completed the duplication of such tapes and mailed copies of the tapes to the complainant via certified mail.
12. It is found that the complainant never received the records that were mailed to her in March 2008, but that she did receive the tapes, statements and arrest reports mailed on May 22, 2008.
13. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that the respondents had provided her with all of the requested records, except a record of a July 26, 2006 arrest of her daughter. The complainant also testified that the respondents had not answered her questions or returned her daughter’s belongings.
14. At the hearing in this matter, the parties agreed that the respondent would file an after-filed exhibit in the form of an affidavit addressing the outstanding arrest record. Such exhibit was filed with the Commission on July 25, 2008. While the affidavit states that all records of arrest have been provided to the complainant, it does not specifically address whether the complainant’s daughter was arrested on July 26, 2006, or whether a report of such arrest ever existed or still exists.
15. It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with copies of requested records, as described in paragraphs 2, and 4, above, shortly after May 22, 2008.
16. It is found that the respondents’ provision of the records described in paragraphs 2 and 4, above, three months after they were requested, was not prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
17. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., when they failed to promptly provide the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraphs 2 and 4, above, as alleged in the complaint.
18. With respect to the questions asked by the complainant in the requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, it is concluded that the respondents are not required to answer questions or to create documents under the FOI Act. It is also concluded that the Commission has no authority to compel the respondents to return the complainant’s daughter’s belongings.
19. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint and at the hearing in this matter with respect to their failure to answer questions asked by the complainant, and their failure to return the complainant’s daughter’s belongings.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondents shall inform the complainant by affidavit as to whether or not they specifically maintain or keep on file the arrest record described in paragraph 13 of the findings, above.
2. If the respondents keep on file or maintain the arrest record described in paragraph 13 of the findings, above, they shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of such record, free of charge.
3. 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 August 27, 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:
Chief, Police Department, Town of
East Hartford; and Police Department,
Town of East Hartford
c/o Frank N. Cassetta, Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
Town Hall
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2008-159FD/paj/9/2/2008