As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2013-390
In the Matter of a Complaint by
James Torlai,
Docket #FIC 2013-390
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Emergency Services and
Public Protection, Division of State
Police; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Emergency Services and
Public Protection, Division of State
May 14, 2014

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 31, 2014, at which time the complainant appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondent’s did not appear.
      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 July 1, 2013, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the Commission’s final decision in Docket #FIC 2012-205, James Torlai v. Division of State Police et al.  (“Torlai I”).    
     3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its records and files in Torlai I.
     4.  In Torlai I, the Commission concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act by first failing to provide records pertaining to pending charges while the charges were still pending, including but not limited to the “record of the arrest,” and then withholding the same records from the complainant, the subject of the records, on the grounds that the records had been erased in the time period that elapsed between his original January 2, 2012 request and the respondents’ eventual March 27, 2012 response.
     5.  In Torlai I the Commission issued the following order to the respondents: 
     1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide copies of any responsive erased records to the complainant, upon his submitting to the respondents satisfactory proof of his identity, pursuant to §54-142a(e)(1), G.S. Specifically, the respondents shall provide copies of the records described in paragraphs 3.a, 3.d, 3.e, 3.g and 3.k
     2.  The respondents shall preserve any requested erased records during the pendency of any appeal from this decision.
     6.  The following records pertaining to a traffic stop of the complainant on June 16, 2011 for allegedly erratic driving were ordered disclosed in Torlai I:
3.a.  All reports, written statements, arrest cards, notes, drafts and other such documents;
3.d.  Any records related to property taken from my vehicle when it was searched;
3.e.  Any records related to property taken from my wallet when it was searched;
3.g.  Any signed reports or summaries of my arrest which were made available to the public; and
3.k.  Results of any searches or inquiries made by any employee of the State Police including private contractors or other agents of the State Police over the last 40 years based on my fingerprints.
     7.  The final decision in Torlai I was issued on April 12, 2013.
     8.  It is found that the complainant sent proof of his identification to the respondents on April 26, 2013, pursuant to paragraph 1 of the order in Torlai I.
     9.  It is found that the complainant further contacted the respondents on May 10, 2013, asking if they were intending to appeal Torlai I, to which he received no reply; and on May 31, 2013, again sending proof of his identification. Further email correspondence ensued on June 3 and June 26, at which time the complainant had received none of the records described in paragraph 6, above.
     10. The complainant acknowledges that he has received records after he filed his complaint with the Commission, but it is found that such records, none of which were provided within ten weeks of the issuance of the decision in Torlai I, were not provided “forthwith,” as ordered.
     11. It is therefore concluded that the respondents failed to comply with the order of the Commission in Torlai I.
     12. In addition, it is found that the respondents never provided copies of the following records, which the complainant has reason to believe exist:
a. A version of the incident report referenced in form N-105, which form was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles;
b. A supplementary incident report that may have been created on June 17, 2011;
c. Any records responsive to paragraph 6.3.k, above, regarding the results of any searches done based on the complainant’s fingerprints.
     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
     1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the orders of the Commission.
     2.  The respondents shall forthwith search for the records described in paragraph 12 of the findings, above, and provide them to the complainant if such records exist.  If the records do not exist, the respondents shall within 45 days of the notice of final decision in this matter provide to the complainant an affidavit attesting to the search that was conducted for the records, together with an explanation why such records do not exist.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 2014.
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

James Torlai
127 Barton Street
Torrington, CT  06790
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police
c/o Terrence M. O’Neill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06105

Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission