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 FIC2011-413
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Jamal Black,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2011-413
Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of
Correction; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
     Respondents
June 27, 2012

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 27, 2012, at which time 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 July 10, 2011, the complainant requested a copy of “an incident report, a CN61005 inmate property monthly disposal report, and a CN61002 inmate property status and receipt”  concerning his “stolen Nintendo D.S. game system and video games” that were confiscated on January 27, 2011 by a correctional officer.
     3. It is found that the respondents acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request on July 15, 2011.
     4. By letter filed August 10, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act, by failing to provide him with a copy of 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 requested by 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 complainant’s confiscated property was referenced in a related disciplinary report against another inmate.  It is found that the disciplinary report served as a receipt of property in lieu of the CN61005 and CN61002 forms.
     10. It is found that the CN61005 and CN61002 do not exist for the property confiscated from the inmate.
     11. With respect to the incident report, it is found that the respondents offered to provide such record to the complainant on March 22, 2012. 
     12. It is found that the complainant first requested the records described paragraph 2, above, one year ago, in March 2011.
     13. It is found that by the time the respondents offered to provide the incident report to the complainant, he had already received a copy from another inmate.
     14. It is found that the respondents failed to provide the incident report to the complainant in a prompt manner.
     15. It is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of the FOI Act.
     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 promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 27, 2012.

_________________________
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:
Jamal Black # 241748
Enfield Correctional Institution
289 Shaker Road
P.O. Box 1500
Enfield, CT  06082
Warden, State of Connecticut, Department
Of Correction; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
c/o James E. Neil, Esq.
State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2011-413/FD/cac/6/27/2012