FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Lawrence Seno and Robert Duplaga,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-342

 

Superintendent, Bridgeport Police Department,

 

                        Respondent                  March 28, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 30, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint dated September 7, 1989, and filed with the Commission on September 11, 1989, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with their August 17, 1989 request for records or information relating to an automobile accident which occurred on or about June 24, 1989, (hereinafter "the accident").

 

            3.  The complainants contend that they did not receive prompt compliance with their request as required by 1-19(a), G.S., and allege that the respondent's failure to provide information in automobile collision cases which result in death or serious injury evidences a policy of noncompliance.  As a result, the complainants request the imposition of a civil penalty as provided in 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            4.  The respondent contends that its August 31, 1989 letter, (hereinafter "letter"), to each of the complainants clearly indicated that the Bridgeport Police Department, (hereinafter "Department"), had no information in its files and therefore no information to disclose.

 

Docket #FIC 89-342                                      Page 2

 

            5.  The respondent maintains that on at least two separate occasions members of the Department searched the Department's files for documentation of the accident and none was found.  Moreover, despite the fact that one of the respondent's off-duty officers was at the scene of the accident, the respondent maintains that its letter informed the complainants that the Department was not the police department involved in the investigation of the accident.

 

            6.  It is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter, there is no information contained in the Department's files which would have been responsive to the complainants' request.

 

            7.  It is found that the Department is not currently involved in the investigation of the accident.

 

            8.  It is also found that the respondent's letter affirmatively misled the complainants.  As a result, the complainants reasonably concluded that the Department had some information which it was choosing to withhold pending the outcome of its investigation of the accident.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the Department did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by not providing the complainants with documents which it did not have in its possession.

 

            10.  Based upon the totality of circumstances of this case, the Commission is not persuaded that the respondent has a policy of nondisclosure of records or information pertaining to automobile accidents in which a fatality or serious injury occurs.  Therefore, as a matter of discretion, the Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainants.

 

Docket #FIC 89-342                                    Page 3

 

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.  However, as agreed upon at the hearing, the respondent shall immediately notify the complainants if the Department:

(1) takes over the investigation of the accident, or in any way becomes involved with or affiliated with an investigation of the accident; or

 

(2) generates or receives any documentation concerning the accident.

 

            3.  The Commission admonishes the respondent for its failure to respond to the complainants' request with clarity sufficient to put the complainants on notice that:

(a) the Department had no documents pertaining to the accident; and

 

(b) the Fairfield Police Department was conducting the investigation of the accident.

 

            4.  The Commission recommends that in the future the respondent carefully consider any requests for information or documentation.  Toward that end, the Commission advises the respondent to make certain that any response it makes to a request for records be clear and concise.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 28, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-342                                    Page 4

 

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:

LAWRENCE SENO AND ROBERT DUPLAGA

c/o Laurence V. Parnoff, Esq.

Debra Arganese, Esq.

1566 Park Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

SUPERINTENDENT, BRIDGEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

Legal Department

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission