Source: http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=532060
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 11:24:47
Document Index: 354629245

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1']

FOI: FIC2012-680
Final Decision FIC2012-680
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 31, 2013, at which time the complainant and 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.).
2. It is found that, by letter dated October 29, 2012, the complainant made a request to the respondents for the following:
“[a] a copy of the report filed by C/O Mr. Marcotte, C/O Mr. Bogalhas, Shake-down Supervisor Lt. Mr. Brown, U/M Captain Mr. Linares, 1st Shift Property Officer Mr. D. Peter on 10/22/12 1st shift during an inst. shake-down they did confiscated [sic] my seven (7) years [sic] old HOT POT according with A.D. 6.6 Reporting of Incidents, page 2 of 4 sec: 6-D Reporting of Confiscation[;]
[b] pursuant to A.D. 6.9 Control of Contraband and Physical Evidence, page 2 of 4 Sec: (5) Inmate Notification of Contraband Seize…a copy of the documentation showing the named officers did notified [sic] inmate (Sosa) of the confiscated HOT POT on 10/22/12 in accordance with A.D. 6.10 Inmate Property, page 3 of 18 sec: (5-B) Unauthorized Property[;]
[c] copy of the inmate property status and receipt form CN 61002 date 10/22/12 as required per A.D. 6.10, page 3 of 18 sec: (5-B)[;]
[d] pursuant to A.D. 6.9 Control of Contraband and Physical Evidence, page 2 of 4 sec: (6) – (E) Chain of Custody… a copy of activity, contraband/criminal physical evidence tag and chain of custody form CN 6901, attachment A, and of the contraband log to include the following data: (1) employee’s name; (2) date and time; (3) reason; and (4) any other relevant information[;]
[e] pursuant to A.D. 6.9 Control of Contraband and Physical Evidence, page 2 of 4 sec: (6) – (C) Logs…a copy of the A&P property hardbound contraband on 10/22/12 which shall be maintained to include: (1) description of confiscated contraband; (2) any identifiable marking, including brand name, serial number and/or model number; (3) date and time of confiscation; (4) location where found; (5) person possessing contraband; (6) staff discovering contraband; (7) a record of any photos of contraband; (8) assigned number which shall be identified by a unique number which shall be prefixed by the facility’s initials and the last two numbers of the calendar year followed by a dash ( - ) and sequential and uninterrupted numbers for logged contraband items [and] any other relevant data [;]
[f] pursuant to A.D. 6.9 Control of Contraband and Physical Evidence, page 2 of 4 sec: (6) – (B), Tagging…a copy of the contraband tagging upon confiscation… [;]
[g] copy/ies of any logging [sic] documentation, documents done by shake-down loging [sic] officer correctional treatment officer (CTO) Ms. Steam on 10/22/12 in regard of my confiscated HOT POT [; and]
[h] a copy of the #137 MacDougall L - (Lima) two (2) unit, unit log book, single page, on 10/22/12 showing the logging [sic] of the start of the inst. shake-down, lock-down and the end of such shake-down.”
3. It is found that, by letter dated November 5, 2012, the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s request and informed him that his request was being forwarded to the Freedom of Information liaison at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution.
4. By letter dated December 3, 2012, and filed on December 6, 2012, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records, described in paragraph 2, above. At the hearing, the complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.
8. It is found that the records requested by the complainant, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
9. With respect to the record described in paragraph 2[c], above, the respondents testified, and it is found, that they provided the complainant with a copy of such record.
10. With respect to the records described in paragraphs 2[b], 2[d], 2[e] and 2[f], above, the respondents testified, and it is found, that they do not exist.
11. With respect to the records described in paragraphs 2[a] and 2[g], above, the respondents testified that the information sought may be included in a final report concerning the October 22nd incident, but that such report is not yet complete. It is found that at the time of the complainant’s October 29th request, the respondents did not have records responsive to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 2[a] and 2[g], above.
12. With respect to the log book described in paragraph 2[h], above, the respondents claim that such record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S., because it identifies movement and procedures for shakedowns and lockdowns in the facility. They claim that disclosure of such information poses a safety and security risk.
13. Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure:
Records, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction, or as it applies to Whiting Forensic Division facilities of the Connecticut Valley Hospital, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction or Whiting Forensic Division facilities. Such records shall include, but are not limited to:
(H) Records that contain information on contacts between inmates, as defined in section 18-84, and law enforcement officers…
14. It is found that the information contained in the records described in paragraphs 2[h]
and 12, above, are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S. See Docket # FIC 2007-317; James Baker v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Osborn Correctional Institution (disclosure of logs containing emergency information that would reveal how the respondent responds to emergency situations found to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.); Docket # FIC 2008-507; Robin Elliott v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (emergency logs of the location of security personnel found to be permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18)(G), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2010-061; Robin Elliott v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Northern Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (information regarding the location and relocation of inmates and staff, and emergency logs revealing the location of security personnel were found to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18)(G), G.S.).
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.
16. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no need to consider the imposition of a civil penalty.
Andres Sosa #260589
FIC/2012-680/FD/cac/9/11//2013
Content Last Modified on 9/24/2013 9:02:29 AM