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 FIC2011-418
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Tyron Wiggins,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2011-418
Warden, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
Northern Correctional Institution;
and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
     Respondents
June 27, 2012

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 10, 2012 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. It is found that by letter dated July 4, 2011, the complainant made a request to the respondents for a copy of any and all documents pertaining to “a signal eleven…on January 25, 2011” which documents should include pictures, incident reports, and medical reports.
     3. It is found that by letter dated July 11, 2011, the respondents informed the complainant that the records were exempt from disclosure and that the matter was closed.
     4. By letter dated August 11, 2011 and filed on August 12, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.
     5. 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.
     6. 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.
     7. 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.”
     8. 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.
     9. Notwithstanding the respondents’ July 11, 2011 response, it is found that the complainant was provided with the requested records; however, two pages were missing as a result of a photocopying error.
     10. It is found that there are no pictures responsive to the complainant’s request. 
     11. At the hearing on this matter, the respondents assured the complainant that the two missing pages would be provided to him by that afternoon.
     12. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the respondents did not violate 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 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:
Tyron Wiggins # 249210
Cheshire Correctional Institution
900 Highland Avenue
Cheshire, CT  06410
Warden, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
Northern Correctional Institution;
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/2011-418/FD/cac/6/27/2012