FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Yomar Fana,  
  Complainant  
  against  

Docket #FIC 2009-240

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police; and

State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police,

 
  Respondents March 24, 2010
       

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 3, 2009, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See  Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford,  Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed May 20, 2009, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his April 30, 2009 request.

 

            3.  It is found that the complainant made an April 30, 2009 written request to the respondents for an extensive number of records pertaining to his criminal case.

 

4.  It is found that the respondents conducted a diligent search for responsive records, and made all the records in their custody, except for signed witness statements and social security numbers, available to the complainant by letter dated June 23, 2009, conditioned on his payment of $28.75. 

 

5.  It is found that the complainant supplied payment for the records on July 27, 2009, and that the respondents in turn provided copies of the records on August 4, 2009.

 

6.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

    “Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

    Except 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

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

 

9.  It is concluded that the records provided to the complainant are public records within the meaning of 1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

            10.  It is further concluded that the records were provided promptly within the meaning of 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.    

 

11.  The complainant contends that certain warrants were not provided to him.

 

12.  It is found that, following the hearing, the respondents obtained the pertinent arrest warrants from the Office of State’s Attorney, and provided them to the complainant without charge.  Those warrants and the letter supplying them have been made an after-filed exhibit and designated as Respondents’ Exhibit 5.

 

13.  It is also found that the search warrant sought by the complainant is a Massachusetts search warrant that was never in the custody of the respondents.  The letter relaying that information to the complainant has been made an after-filed exhibit and designated as Respondents’ Exhibit 6.

 

14.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

            2.  The respondents are commended for their thorough search, their prompt provision of records, and their willingness to obtain records from the State’s Attorney’s Office.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 2010.

 

 

____________________________

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:

 

Yomar Fana, #329525

Enfield Correctional Institution

289 Shaker Road

Enfield, CT 06082

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police; and

State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety,

Division of State Police

c/o Terrence M. O’Neill, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2009-240FD/paj/3/25/2010