FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Walter P. Doolittle,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 88-41

 

Colonel Lester J. Forst, Commanding Officer and Central District Major Crime Squad, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police and State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police,

 

Respondents May 11, 1988

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 17, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

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

 

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter dated January 8, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondents for copies of reports concerning 15 complaints filed by the complainant.

 

3. On or about January 27, 1988 the respondent commanding officer provided the complainant with copies of 3 investigative reports, stating that such reports were all his department had relative to the complainant's complaints.

 

4. By letter of complaint dated February 5, 1988 and filed with the Commission on February 8, 1988 the complainant alleged he had been denied access to records by the respondents. The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $500.

 

5. It is found that of the 15 complaints filed by the complainant, only 3 resulted in the production of investigative reports.

 

Docket #FIC 88-41 Page Two

 

6. The complainant claims that the respondents are required to investigate each complaint submitted and that each such investigation should have resulted in a report.

 

7. It is found, however, that this Commission lacks jurisdiction over the actions of the respondents regarding the production of investigative reports. The failure to produce such reports did not violate any provision of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

8. It is further found that the respondents did not deny the complainant access to public records within the meaning of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

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 May 11, 1988.

 

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission