In the Matter of a Complaint by SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL DECISION


Sam Lapides,




against Docket #FIC 87-143


Records Division, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,


Respondent August 10, 1988


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 23, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. On July 16, 1987 the Commission transmitted a report of hearing officer in the matter, which report was adopted as the Final Decision of the Commission on August 26, 1987. Notice of such Final Decision was issued on August 31, 1987. The complainant appealed the Commission's Final Decision to Superior Court, Docket No. 87 0336757S, and, on November 17, 1987, Judge Shaughnessy, in response to a motion by the complainant-plaintiff, remanded the matter to the Commission for the taking of further evidence, pursuant to 4-183(e), G.S. A supplemental hearing was held on March 16, 1988 and continued to May 4, 1988, at which times the complainant and the respondent again appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.


After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:


1. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of the findings in the Commission's Final Decision in the above matter, dated August 26, 1987, are hereby incorporated as if more fully set forth herein.


2. It is found that all records in the respondent's files concerning case #G-71-762C, the matter of the complainant's kidnapping, have been destroyed and that the respondent's failure to provide records in response to the complainant's request did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.


Docket #FIC 87-143 Page Two


3. It is found that records relating to the kidnapping of the complainant may still exist in the files of the Statewide Organized Crime Investigative Task Force, the State Police Bureau of Identification or the State Police Criminal Intelligence Center.


4. Such agencies, however, are independent of the respondent and their files were not, therefore, included in the respondent's search for records on behalf of the complainant.


5. The complainant claims that when he submitted his request for records to the respondent he did so believing that the respondent had control of all state police records.


6. It is found that the respondent replied to a request for records in its files, which request was directed to its commanding officer. Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act required the respondent to notify the complainant of the possible existence of records in the files of other agencies.


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.


2. The Commission hereby incorporates by reference paragraph 2 of the Order in its August 26, 1987 Final Decision in the above matter.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of August 10, 1988.



Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission