FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 6, 2008 and September 19, 2008, at which times the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated February 5, 2008, and filed on February 7, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2006-503, Jeffrey Smith v. Chief, Police Department, City of New London (hereinafter “Docket #FIC 2006-503”).

 

            3.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation, the Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in Docket #FIC 2006-503, wherein the Commission ordered:

The respondent shall forthwith conduct a diligent search of the department’s files to ascertain whether any records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request. 

 

Thereafter, the respondent shall provide the complainant with any records that are discovered as a result of such search.  If no records exist, the respondent shall notify the complainant by affidavit of the results of such search.

            4.  It is found that, in response to the order at issue, the respondent conducted a diligent search of his files for records responsive to the complainant’s request in Docket #FIC2006-503 and located such records.  It is further found that, under cover letter dated January 16, 2008, the respondent provided the complainant with the additional responsive records that he had located, as well as an affidavit stating that such records were the only records that had been located. 

 

5.  At the June 6, 2008, hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that he did not receive the January 16, 2008, letter and attachments described in paragraph 4, above.  At such time, the hearing officer noted that the complainant had also failed to receive administrative documents sent by the Commission to the complainant at his place of incarceration.  The parties agreed that the respondent would mail to the complainant a second copy of the January 16, 2008, letter and attachments, and that, upon his receipt of such records, the complainant would withdraw his complaint if satisfied. 

 

6.  By letter dated June 13, 2008, the complainant informed the Commission that he had received the letter and attachments described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, but that he was still not satisfied that the respondent had done a thorough search.  Further, the complainant requested that he be given copies of audiotapes that were referenced in the materials sent to him. 

 

7.  It is found that the respondent conducted a diligent search for the records at issue in Docket #FIC2006-503, and that he has provided the complainant with copies of all requested records which the respondent keeps on file or maintains.  It is concluded that the respondent complied with the order in Docket #FIC2006-503, and therefore has not violated the Freedom of information Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

8.  With respect to the audiotapes, it is found that such records were not within the scope of the request in Docket #FIC2006-503.  Thus, the Commission cannot order their disclosure at this time.  However, the complainant is free to request such audiotapes from the respondent, and if denied access, file another complaint with the Commission. 

 

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 October 22, 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:

 

Jeffrey Smith, #211621

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of New London

c/o Brian Estep, Esq.

Conway & Londregan, PC

38 Huntington Street

PO Box 1351

New London, CT 06320

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-094FD/paj/10/28/2008