Provost v. Hoffman, Chief, Police Department, Town of Plainfield
Because the respondent police department did not maintain requested video recordings at the time of the complainant's request, the respondents did not violate Connecticut General Statutes §1-210(a) and 1-212(a) of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with the records request. Joseph Provost appealed to the Freedom of Information Commission alleging that the respondents, including the Plainfield Police Department, its chief and records supervisor, violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with his March 23, 2012 request for certain audio, video and written records collected on March 13, 2012 and March 20, 2012. At the hearing, Provost stated that the respondents had complied satisfactorily with his request for audio and written records. The video recordings remained in issue. The FOIC found that at the time of the complainant's request, the respondents maintained such video recordings only for 24 hours after which time the recordings were automatically re-used. The complainant had a telephone conversation with the records supervisor who gave the complainant incorrect information about the length of time the respondents maintained their video recordings. The FOIC found that, in fact, the respondents did not maintain the requested video recordings at the time of the complainant's request, which was more than 24 hours after the days in question. Consequently, the respondents did not violate the FOIA as alleged. As a result of the complainant's request, the respondents subsequently changed the length of time that video recordings are maintained from 24 hours to 29 to 31 days. The complaint was dismissed.