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 FIC2015-324
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
John Kaminski,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2015-324
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction; State of
Connecticut, Department of Correction,
     Respondents
December 16, 2015

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 10, 2015, 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 Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Docket No. CV 03-0826293, (corrected order dated January 27, 2004, Sheldon, J.).
     For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2015-051, John Kaminski v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction.
     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, by letter dated April 16, 2015, the complainant made a request to the respondents for a copy of the incident and investigation reports related to his allegation that he had been assaulted by a correctional officer. 
     3.  By letter dated May 4, 2015 and filed on May 8, 2015, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the complainant’s April 16, 2015 request, described in paragraph 2, above.
     4.  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.
     5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
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.
     6.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
     7.  It is found that the requested records, to the extent they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
     8.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that he filed a formal complaint with the respondents that he was assaulted by a correctional officer while being transported between the prison and a medical facility.  The complainant contended that, pursuant to the respondents’ Administrative Directive No. 6.6, an incident report should have been generated, and an investigation should have been conducted. 
     9.  It is found, based on credible testimony offered at the hearing on this matter, that the respondents conducted a diligent search for the requested records and that no such records exist.
     10. Therefore, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.
     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 regular meeting of December 16, 2015.

_______________________
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:
John Kaminski #241124
Osborn Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 100
Somers, CT  06071
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o James Neil, Esq.
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT   06109
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2015-324/FD/cac/12/16/2015