FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Cecilia Okeke,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1996-167
Chief of Police, New Haven Police
Department,
Respondent December
11, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 1996, 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 dated March 20, 1996, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide her with access to or a copy
of records regarding the following:
a) all activities pertaining to her being used
for a human guinea pig;
b) the wire tapping of her telephone;
c) the tracking, intercepting and hoarding of
her letters,
d) her being monitored and hooked up for a
human guinea pig study;
e) efforts to keep her from getting and
keeping a job since 1989;
f) efforts to hurt her in and out of her
apartment and at public and
school libraries and computer rooms;
g) things put in her groceries, in cooked food
inside her apartment
and in things left on grocery store
shelves for her to buy;
h) various mob activities carried out in her
apartment;
i) things that have been put in her water;
j)
the
freezing of her apartment in the winter months;
k)
the
things done to make her continuously bleed;
l)
involvement
in the killing of her brother in Nigeria in March 1991;
m)
instigating
hardships and harming family members; and
n)
the
interception of phone calls to her family members.
3. Having failed to receive a response to her
March 20, 1996 request, by letter dated March 29, 1996, and filed with the
Commission on April 3, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission
alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by
denying her access to the requested records.
4. It is found that pursuant to a request from
the complainant in 1995, the respondent had provided the complainant with all
records of cases involving her.
5. It is further found that, having received
the complainant’s March 20, 1996 request, the respondent inquired of the police
department’s intelligence and detective divisions whether there were any
investigations of the complainant and whether there was any surveillance being
conducted on her, and discovered that there were none.
6. It is also found that the respondent
searched the department’s files for any records concerning telephone wire taps
on the complainant or the tracking of her letters, as well as for any other
records responsive to the complainant’s inquiries identified in paragraph 3a) -
n), above, and found none.
7. The respondent claims that, because no
records concerning the complainant other than those identified in paragraph 4,
above, exist, the complaint in this matter should be dismissed.
8. It is found that no records exist that are
responsive to the complainant’s request.
9. Because the requested records do not exist,
it is concluded that the respondent is not in violation of §§1-19(a)
or 1-15(a), G.S., under the facts of this case.
10. Section 1-21i(a), G.S., provides in
pertinent part:
Any denial of the
right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be made
to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has
custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days
of such request.
11. It is found, however, that although no
records exist responsive to the complainant’s request, that the respondent had
an obligation under §1-21i(a),
G.S., to respond in writing to the complainant’s request within four business
days.
12. It is concluded that the respondent is in
violation of §1-21i(a),
G.S., by failing to respond to the complainant’s request identified in
paragraph 3, above.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth strictly
comply with the provisions of §1-21i(a),
G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of December 11, 1996 .
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
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:
Cecilia Okeke
PO Box
74
New Haven, CT 06501
Chief of Police, New Haven PoliceDepartment
c/o
Patricia Cofrancesco, Esq.
165 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC 1996-167/FD/eal/121696