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 FIC2014-094
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Shawn Crocker,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2014-094
Dora B. Schriro, 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,
     Respondents
December 17, 2014

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 11, 2014, at which times the complainant and respondents appeared 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.  It is found that on January 20, 2014, the complainant requested from the respondents copies of “all police reports and statements concerning the investigation into the stolen property (i.e. religious gold chain) of inmate Shawn Crocker while he was held in the custody of the Department of Correction at Corrigan Correctional Center on May 14, 2013.”
     3.  It is found that the respondents provided to the complainant records concerning the assault involving the complainant that occurred on May 14, 2013, but no records concerning the complainant’s gold chain that was apparently lost or taken during the assault.
     4.  By letter of complaint filed February 14, 2014, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with the records he requested.
     5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:
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, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
     6.  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 … receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
     7.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
     8.  It is concluded that the records provided to the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
     9.  It is found that the records provided to the complainant do not reference the gold chain, that those records are the only records in the custody of the respondents concerning the May 14 2013 incident during which the gold chain was lost or stolen, and that the respondents did not create any records concerning an investigation, if any, of the loss of the gold chain.
     10. It is concluded, therefore, 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.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 17, 2014.
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:
Shawn Crocker #204918
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
1153 East Street, South
Suffield, CT  06080
Dora B. Schriro, 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
Neil Parille, 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

FIC/2014-094FD/cac/12/17/2014