|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1406
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Peterborough Lakefield Community Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted the following request to the Peterborough Lakefield Community Police Services Board (the Police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ): ...please forward to me copies of any and all information that is held in the custody and/or control of the [Police], which pertains to me personally. This information may be in written, electronic, or other format, and may include, for example, memos, letters, press clippings, and investigative files/reports. Also specifically included in this request is a copy of exactly what information is accessed by officers via in-vehicle computer consoles and/or the information that is provided to officers seeking a check on my name and personal information from their dispatcher. The Police responded to the appellant on March 28, 2000 and granted partial access to the requested records. The decision of the Police was worded, in part, as follows: Partial access is available to the records you requested. With reference to your request for " exactly what information is accessed by officers via in-vehicle computer consoles and/or the information that is provided to officers seeking a check on my name and personal information from their dispatcher ". Access is denied to this information pursuant to CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) Reference Manual, Chapter 1.1 - Introduction to CPIC, Section 4 Confidentiality ... [emphasis in the original] According to the documentation provided to this office, the information that was provided to the appellant consists of copies of two incident reports (each one consisting of two pages of incident details). In appealing the decision of the Police, the appellant attached the records (or documents) that they sent to him, which include, in addition to the two incident reports, two documents which contain the results of a check of the database maintained by the Police and a severed copy of the CPIC Reference Manual, Chapter 1.1 (only section 4 is revealed on this page). I note that these documents were also sent to this office. However, the index provided by the Police that is attached to all of the documents it sent does not indicate that this information was provided to the appellant. The appellant responded to the Police's decision on April 5, 2000 by facsimile and asked for clarification on several points. Specifically, he asked: Could you please advise as to what information databases are maintained by your agency, and which of those databases were searched in response to my request. As regards the information that was provided to me, were there not written notes, on these incidences, made by the responding officers in their duty notebooks? If there were, they why were these notes not provided? As regards your reference to the [CPIC] Reference manual, in denying access to information that I had requested: Please note that contents of the CPIC Reference manual are not valid exemptions to the requirement of disclosure of information, as outlined under sub-section 6 - 16 of the [ Act ]. Therefore, I am asking that you either release the requested information, or provide a valid exemption to justify your refusal to do so. The Police apparently did not respond to the appellant's April 5 letter. I note that the Police did not attach a copy of this letter to the documentation that they sent to this office. The letter indicates that it was sent to the facsimile number of the "Fax Executive" for the Police. This number is confirmed on documents that the Police faxed to this office. However, the appellant did not provide the actual transmission record which would indicate that the facsimile was, in fact, sent to the number referred to on the letter or that it was received by the Police. On April 28, 2000, the appellant appealed the decision of the Police. In his letter, the appellant indicated that the decision of the Police was not adequate and I will consider this as an issue in this appeal. He indicated further that the basis for his appeal is essentially outlined in his April 5 letter to the Police. With respect to points one and two of his letter, the appellant has raised the reasonableness of the search conducted by the Police for responsive records. During mediation, the appellant indicated that he believes there should be, at a minimum, a report and police officers' notes for an incident involving him (other than the two already identified) that occurred in late spring/early summer of 1998. The Police state in their decision letter that partial access to the records is granted but do not indicate what records have been located. For example, it is not clear whether they consider the portion of the CPIC Reference Manual dealing with queries to be responsive, or whether there are other records. As I noted above, the package of records and other material that the Police sent to this office includes two documents pertaining to the searches of their database. The Police do not state that these records were disclosed to the appellant, although it appears that they were. It is not clear whether the Police consider them to be records responsive to the appellant's request or whether they sent them to him simply as proof that they searched for responsive records. It may be, in part, that the appellant's queries about the reasonableness of search relate as well to the adequacy of the decision and the decision to deny access to certain records. Therefore, I will consider this aspect of the decision under the adequacy of the decision discussion. Finally, with respect to item three above, the issue appears to relate to both the adequacy of the decision and the adequacy of search, as the appellant indicates: The contents of the manual are, I would suggest, guidelines not law; are not valid exemptions under the Act ; and should not be taken into consideration when making a decision to grant or deny access to records requested under the Act . However, even if I were to accept the CPIC Reference Manual guidelines quoted by the Police, I would argue that I am a person authorized to see my
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 07, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|