FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Vera S. Zima,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 91-121

 

Wallingford Police Department,

 

Respondent October 23, 1991

 

The above captioned matter was scheduled as a contested case on August 8, 1991, at which time the complainant 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 May 13, 1991, and filed with this Commission May 20, 199l, the complainant alleged that the respondent had failed to provide her with certain copies of records that she had requested on May 7, 1991.

 

2. The complainant also raised numerous concerns about the manner in which the respondent and others conducted a specific murder investigation, but these concerns are not within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

3. The respondent contended that it had not violated the Freedom of Information Act because it did not have the arrest report she requested (although it had certain related reports), and because it had made the requested records available to the complainant conditioned only upon her payment of $36.60, the cost of duplicating the records.

 

4. It is found that on May 13, 1991, the complainant was notified by the respondent that her request for records was being processed.

 

5. It is further found that on June 3, 1991, the respondent notified the complainant that she could have the requested copies upon payment of the costs of copying.

 

6. It is found that the complainant did not attempt to

 

Docket #FIC 91-121 Page 2

 

pick up the copies because she did not want to pay the charges.

 

7. At the hearing the complainant viewed the copies that had been prepared in response to her request.

 

8. It is found that the complainant did not want the copies that had been prepared for her.

 

9. The respondent asked that the Commission find pursuant to 52-568(a), G.S., that the complaint was brought frivolously, without reasonable grounds, and principally for the purpose of harassing the agency against which the appeal had been taken.

 

10. The Commission declines to make such findings under the circumstances of this case.

 

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 October 23, 1991.

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-121 Page 3

 

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:

Vera S. Zima

114 Lincoln Avenue

Forestville, CT 06010

 

Wallingford Police Department

c/o Attorney Janice M. Small

Wallingford Law Department

45 South Main Street

Wallingford, CT 06492

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission