FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Daniel Diaz,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2004-506

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Britain,

 
  Respondent October 11, 2005
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 18, 2005, 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 1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated October 25, 2004, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of “all reports from CI purchases of heroin from Daniel Diaz on 1/24/01, 2/05/01, and 2/12/01, search and seizure warrant for 157 Malikowski Circle in 2001, investigation reports of Daniel Diaz aka “BB” (2001), and CI statements pertaining to search warrants for 157 Malikowski Circle in 2001” [hereinafter “the requested records”].    

 

3.  By letter dated November 5, 2004, and filed with the Commission on November 8, 2004, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying him copies of the requested records. 

 

4.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….

 

5.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

6.  It is found that the respondent maintains the requested records and that such records are public records within the meaning of 1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated November 19, 2004 the complainant informed the respondent that he had not received a reply to the letter described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated November 24, 2004, the respondent replied to the complainant and informed him that he had not received the letter described in paragraph 2, above, and asked the complainant to specify which records he was seeking. 

 

9.  It is found that, by letter dated December 4, 2004 to the respondent, the complainant renewed his request as described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

10.  It is found that, under cover letter dated January 13, 2005, the respondent provided the complainant with copies of the requested records. 

 

11.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the requested records, but contended that they were not responsive since such records do not specify the name “Daniel Diaz” on their face. 

 

12.  However, it is found that the respondents have provided the complainant with copies of all requested records regarding the heroin purchases described in paragraph 2, above, and have not withheld any records from the complainant.  The fact that such records do not specify the name “Daniel Diaz” is not a matter within the scope of the  Commission’s jurisdiction. 

 

13.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act. 

 

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 special meeting of October 11, 2005.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Daniel Diaz

c/o Carmen Diaz

157 Malikowski Circle

New Britain, CT 06053

 

Chief, Police Department,

City of New Britain

c/o Joseph E. Skelly, Jr., Esq.

New Britain Corporation Counsel

27 West Main Street

New Britain, CT 06051

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-506FD/paj/10/13/2005