The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 1, 2012 at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

     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 March 26, 2012 the complainant made a request to the respondents for reports regarding incidents that occurred at his residence on January11, 2012 and March 8, 2012.  The complainant subsequently requested a copy of the video surveillance tape related to those incidents by letter dated April 24, 2012.

     3.  It is found that the respondents complied with the complainant’s requests and provided him with two reports on April 12, 2012.  The respondents also provided the surveillance tape.

     4.  However, by letter dated March 26, 2012 and received on March 28, 2012, the complainant appealed to this Commission which appeal did not allege that the respondent failed to comply with his request or allege any other violation of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.

     5.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant explained that his complaint was that the two incident reports include accounts of the incident that were not supported by the surveillance tape.

     6.  It is concluded that the complainant has not alleged a violation 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.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 2013.

__________________________
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:

Kevin Hackett
50 Wacona Avenue
#4J
Waterbury, CT  06705

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

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2012-176/FD/cac/1/23/2013