FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Nabeel Kaddah,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2009-587

Chief, Police Department,

City of Bridgeport; and

Police Department,

City of Bridgeport,

 
  Respondents August 25, 2010
       

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 28, 2010, 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 filed October 5, 2009, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents failed to respond to his request for public records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated September 1, 2009, requested from the respondents records pertaining to the analysis of and reports on certain fingernail clippings relating to his trial and conviction.

 

4.  It is found that the respondents, by letter dated September 21, 2009, replied that they no longer retained their copy of the requested records, because the case was more than ten years old.  The respondents directed the complainant to the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (providing the addresses for both), each of whom should have retained a copy of the requested records.  At the hearing, counsel for the respondents pledged to assist the complainant in obtaining the requested records from the agencies that retained them, including contacting the complainant’s attorney.

 

5.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain the requested records, which were disposed of under the applicable retention schedule, and therefore 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 assisting the complainant beyond the requirements of the FOI Act.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 25, 2010.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Nabeel Kaddah #232902

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT 06410


Chief, Police Department,

City of Bridgeport; and

Police Department,

City of Bridgeport

C/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2009-587FD/sw/8/27/2010