135 Conn. App. 807
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Lucarelli, pro se, appeals a trial court dismissal of his administrative FOI appeal.
- Plaintiff requested copies of four police incident reports and related records on June 29, 2009.
- Department provided incident reports July 9, 2009 and a printout of name matches; later claimed no further records existed.
- Plaintiff alleged additional responsive records existed; department conducted an additional search and produced some records by December 4, 2009.
- Commission found unintentional nondisclosure of a voice mail tape recording but held no transcription/retention obligation; ordered production if tape existed and further searches.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) voice mail retention/transcription exemption, (2) denial of subpoenas, (3) failure to apply penalty statute; trial court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1-213(b)(3) exemptions foreclose transcription/retention of voice mail | Lucarelli argues department should have retained/transcribed voice mail. | Freedom of Information Commission held no such transcription duty under § 1-213(b)(3). | No error; exemption applies, transcription/retention not required. |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by not ruling on subpoenas | Lucarelli sought subpoenas to compel attendance and records. | Commission has broad discretion to grant subpoenas; no abuse shown. | No reversible error; no material prejudice from lack of ruling on subpoenas. |
| Whether the commission erred in not enforcing § 1-240(a) penalty | Plaintiff seeks penalty for deleting voice mail messages. | The conduct does not fall under § 1-240(a); commission lacks criminal jurisdiction. | Affirmed; penalty provision not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 266 Conn. 492 (2003) (standard of review for agency findings; substantial evidence required)
- United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212 (2002) (abuse of discretion; due regard for agency's evidentiary rulings)
- Fromer v. Freedom of Information Commission, 90 Conn. App. 101 (2005) (subpoena power; discretionary denials not inherently prejudicial)
- Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790 (2008) (substantive/prejudicial impact of procedural irregularities)