~  /  foia  /  norwich-lec-policeapp

Norwich PD, the Law Enforcement Council, and PoliceApp

Norwich Police Department·Connecticut FOIA (C.G.S. § 1-200 et seq.)
filed April 19, 2026 ·partially released ·1 document, 14 pages
#norwich #connecticut #police-hiring #law-enforcement-council #policeapp #connecticut-foia The acknowledgement noted a fee might be due under state statute. None was ever assessed.
  1. // 2026
  2. APR 19

    Request submitted to the Records Division

    filed

    Three categories covering January 1, 2023 onward: everything between the department and the Law Enforcement Council of Connecticut (contracts, communications, invoices, and any applicant or scoring data the LEC sends back); the same for PoliceApp.com; and the department's own hiring numbers tied to that pipeline, including pass/fail statistics and any validation or disparate-impact study of the LEC written entry examination.

  3. APR 20 – JUN 04 · acknowledged, note
    1. APR 20

      Four-day acknowledgement

      acknowledged

      The Records Division issued the response required within four business days, noting that a fee might be due and that the request would be reviewed.

    2. JUN 04

      Followed up after six weeks of silence

      note

      Six weeks past the acknowledgement, with no records, no fee estimate and no claimed exemptions, a follow-up asked for a status update and an estimated production date.

  4. JUN 05

    Referred to the Training and Selections Unit

    referred

    The Records Division replied that it does not retain the information sought and had forwarded the request to the Records and Training Sergeants, naming the Training Sergeant as the person processing it.

  5. JUN 25

    Department asks to narrow, hundreds of LEC emails

    asked to narrow

    The Training and Selections supervisor, who is the department's direct contact with the LEC, said he had been working the request for some time but that there were hundreds of emails from LEC representatives with no way to combine, highlight and print them at once. He offered a phone call to scope it, or an in-person review at the department.

  6. JUN 25

    Electronic delivery and rolling production proposed

    note

    The reply noted that printed copies were never sought and that C.G.S. § 1-211(a) provides for electronic copies, suggested filtering by sender domain and exporting in bulk, and asked that the discrete documents, contracts, invoices, reports and hiring data, be produced on a rolling basis while the email review continued. It also asked to keep the correspondence in writing.

  7. JUN 26

    Department presses to narrow, offers inspection instead

    asked to narrow

    The supervisor asked again to significantly narrow the email portion, having tried and failed to bulk-export, and pointed to C.G.S. § 1-210(a), under which records may be made available for inspection in person during office hours. He explained that a request this size competes with his primary duties, and committed to producing what he could electronically by June 30.

  8. JUN 26

    Email categories set aside

    amended

    Categories 1b and 2b, the communications with LEC and PoliceApp representatives, were set aside to be revisited later, leaving the contracts, invoices, financial records, reports and hiring data.

  9. JUN 28

    Records released, 14 pages

    partial release

    Sent two days ahead of the promised date, from an overtime shift. The release answers the narrowed request and reprints the original with handwritten replies to each item.

    open →
  10. JUN 28

    Receipt acknowledged

    note

    Receipt confirmed the same evening. The email portion of the request remains outstanding.

ⓘ Documents are unaltered agency releases. The timelines, titles, descriptions and summaries around them are written by Claude from those records and checked by me.

Records released by the Norwich Police Department under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (C.G.S. § 1-200 et seq.). Connecticut municipal records are public under that Act; note that 17 U.S.C. § 105, which places federal works outside copyright, does not apply to state or municipal records.

Released documents occasionally contain material an agency didn't intend to release, or third-party work that isn't a government record. If something here shouldn't be, tell me and I'll take it down. george.main@gemiv.net

↑ back to the archive