FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 18, 2011, at which times the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2010-040, Robert A. Cushman v. Commissioner, Department of Public Safety et al.

 

 

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 January 26, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request for records. 

 

3. It is found that the complainant, in the course of his representation of a client, requested, by letter dated January 4, 2011, copies of all audio and video records created in connection with the arrest of his client for driving while intoxicated.

 

4. It is found that the respondents acknowledged the request on January 7, 2011, advised the complainant by email on January 13, 2011 that the mobile video recording (“MVR”) created by the arresting officer from his vehicle was not available from Troop K, and that the booking room videotape had been overwritten in the course of the usual two-week rotation and replacement schedule, and therefore no longer existed  On February 16, the respondents provided a copy of the MVR that they had located, and an audio CD including a telephone call.

 

5. Thorough and convincing testimony, subject to extensive cross-examination, was presented at the hearings on this matter in support of the respondents’ position that no records were withheld from the complainant. That evidence established, to the satisfaction of the hearing officer, that the respondents have no further records responsive to the complainant’s request, notwithstanding that some of the evidence may reasonably have suggested to the complainant that additional records might exist.

 

            6.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

 

 

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

1. The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 26, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Robert A. Cushman

705 North Mountain Road

Newington, CT  06111

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and

State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Terrence M. O’Neill, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2011-041/FD/cac/10/26/2011