The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 17, 2012, at which times 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.  By letter of complaint filed June 3, 2011, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for public records.

3. It is found that, by letter dated May 3, 2011, the complainant requested the following:

      a. Any records showing his biographic information, including his date of birth, his city and country of birth, and his citizenship; and

      b. Any records showing when, where and by whom he was arrested.

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 . . . 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 only records maintained by the respondent that show the complainant’s “biographical information” show his local address on the date he was arrested, and not his citizenship or date of birth.  At the hearing, the complainant said that he was satisfied with this explanation.

8. It is found that the complainant was arrested at a Waterbury court, where he had been brought on other charges, and that the arrest was not made by the Waterbury Police Department, which has no records of that arrest.

9. It is concluded 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 April 25, 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:

David McNichol #313199
Osborn Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 100
Somers, CT  06071

Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and
Police Department, City of Waterbury
c/o Gary S. Roosa
Legal Advisor
Waterbury Police Department
255 East Main Street
Waterbury, CT  06702

_________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission