The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 9, 2012 at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2012-205, James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public, Division of State Police, et al.

     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 5, 2012, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for public records that had been ordered disclosed by the Commission on February 21, 2012, Docket #FIC 2011-102, James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety et al.

     3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its records and decision in Docket #FIC 2011-102, James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety et al.

     4.  It is found that the order in Docket #FIC 2011-102 directed the respondents to forthwith provide certain records of the arrest of a third party, including the party’s address, the date, time and place of his arrest, a list of all the charges, and a copy of the blood alcohol content test results and/or drug test results of any such tests were formed.

     5.  It is found that the respondents did not provide the records until the day of the hearing in this matter.

     6.  It is found that the respondents have been operating with reduced staff assigned to FOI Act compliance since February 2012.

     7.  It is also found, however, that the quantity of records ordered to be provided was small, and that the records should already have been identified and compiled in connection with their preparation for and defense of Docket #FIC 2011-102, which was heard on June 30, 2011 and decided on February 21, 2012.

     8.  It is concluded that the respondents did not comply with the order of the Commission in Docket #FIC 2011-102.

     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 orders of the Commission.

     2. The respondents are advised that it should not be necessary for a citizen to file an FOI complaint in order to obtain compliance with the Commission’s orders.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 28, 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:

James Torlai
127 Barton Street
Torrington, CT  06790

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Emergency Services and Public Protection; and
State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection
c/o Terrence M. O’Neill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06105

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2012-242/FD/cac/3/28/2013