FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 29, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Both parties agreed that the Commission’s record and decision in Docket #FIC 2008-649; Bryan Jordan v. Chief, New Haven Police Department concerned precisely the same issue as this case—that is, whether the respondents are required to disclose the internal investigation report of Detective Clarence Willoughby.  The respondents relied on the evidence and argument presented by them in the prior case, and the complainant waived his right to cross examine the witnesses who had testified in Docket #FIC 2008-649.  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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed September 4, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for copies of certain public records.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated August 4, 2008, the complainant requested a copy of the internal affairs report on Detective Clarence Willoughby, along with certain other records no longer at issue.

4.  It is found that the respondents did not provide the requested internal investigation report.     

 

5.  In Docket #FIC 2008-649, Bryan Jordan v. Chief, New Haven Police Department, the Commission concluded that the internal affairs report on Detective Willoughby was not exempt from disclosure, and ordered its production.

 

6.  Based upon the facts, conclusions and orders in that case, it is concluded that the requested record is not exempt from disclosure, and that the respondents violated the FOI Act by withholding it from the complainant.

 

           

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

 

            1.  The respondents shall forthwith mail or deliver to the complainant, free of charge, at his institutional address, a copy of the internal investigation report concerning Detective Willoughby.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 22, 2009.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

J’Veil M. Outing #324279

MacDougall-Walker C I

1153 East Street, South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Haven; and

Police Department, City of New Haven

C/o Kathleen Foster, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

City of New Haven

165 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-576FD/sw/7/23/2009