Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 01 — PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION · Chapter 14 — Freedom of Information Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-211 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 1-19a). Disclosure of computer-stored public records. Contracts. Acquisition of system, equipment, software to store or retrieve nonexempt public records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, including an electronic copy sent to the electronic mail address of the person making such request, if the agency can reasonably make any such copy or have any such copy made. Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by state statute, no public agency shall enter into a contract with, or otherwise obligate itself to, any person if such contract or obligation impairs the right of the public under the Freedom of Information Act to inspect or copy the agency's nonexempt public records existing on-line in, or stored on a device or medium used in connection with, a computer system owned, leased or otherwise used by the agency in the course of its governmental functions.

(c) On and after July 1, 1992, before any public agency acquires any computer system, equipment or software to store or retrieve nonexempt public records, it shall consider whether such proposed system, equipment or software adequately provides for the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act at the least cost possible to the agency and to persons entitled to access to nonexempt public records under the Freedom of Information Act. In meeting its obligations under this subsection, each state public agency shall consult with the Department of Administrative Services as part of the agency's design analysis prior to acquiring any such computer system, equipment or software. The Department of Administrative Services shall adopt written guidelines to assist municipal agencies in carrying out the purposes of this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall require an agency to consult with said department prior to acquiring a system, equipment or software or modifying software, if such acquisition or modification is consistent with a design analysis for which such agency has previously consulted with said department. The Department of Administrative Services shall consult with the Freedom of Information Commission on matters relating to access to and disclosure of public records for the purposes of this subsection. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to software modifications which would not affect the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

(P.A. 75-342, S. 4; P.A. 90-307, S. 3, 5; P.A. 91-347, S. 1, 5; P.A. 97-47, S. 5; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-9, S. 26, 50; P.A. 11-51, S. 76; 11-150, S. 21.)

History: P.A. 90-307 added Subsec. (b) re disclosure of copy of voter registration data maintained in a computer storage system; P.A. 91-347 repealed former Subsec. (a) which had required agencies to provide printouts of data, relettered former Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (a), amending provisions to apply to “public records” instead of “voter registration records”, to substitute “nonexempt data contained in such records” for “voter registration data”, to add clause “if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made” and to add a sentence re cost for a copy, added new Subsec. (b) re prohibition on contracts and obligations impairing public's right to inspect or copy computerized nonexempt public records, and added Subsec. (c) re agency requirements before acquiring computer system, equipment or software to store or retrieve nonexempt public records, effective July 1, 1992; P.A. 97-47 substituted “the Freedom of Information Act” for “this chapter”; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-9 amended Subsec. (c) by substituting “Department of Information Technology” for “Office of Information and Technology”, effective July 1, 1997; Sec. 1-19a transferred to Sec. 1-211 in 1999; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Department of Information Technology” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Department of Administrative Services”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 11-150 amended Subsec. (a) to add reference to electronic copy sent via electronic mail and make technical changes, effective July 1, 2011.

Annotations to former section 1-19a:

Cited. 174 C. 308; 181 C. 324; 184 C. 102; 190 C. 235; 192 C. 234; Id., 310; 204 C. 609; 205 C. 767; 206 C. 449; 207 C. 698; 208 C. 442; 209 C. 204; 210 C. 590; Id., 646; 212 C. 100; 213 C. 126; Id., 216; 214 C. 312; 216 C. 253; 217 C. 153; Id., 193; 218 C. 256; Id., 757; 220 C. 225; 221 C. 217; Id., 300; Id., 393; Id., 482; Id., 549; 222 C. 621; 228 C. 158; Id., 271.

Cited. 4 CA 468; 14 CA 380; judgment reversed, see 210 C. 646; 16 CA 49; 19 CA 352; Id., 539; 20 CA 671. Printout copies, not computer diskettes, are appropriate responses to information requests. 22 CA 316. Cited. 29 CA 821; 35 CA 111; 37 CA 589; 42 CA 402; 43 CA 133.

Cited. 41 CS 31; Id., 267; 42 CS 84; Id., 129; Id., 291.

Annotations to present section:

Section does not empower commission to order agency to separate exempt from non-exempt data when request incorporates both and no inquiry is made into whether agency can reasonably separate such data or whether non-exempt data alone would satisfy requester. 307 C. 648.

Subsec. (a):

Applicable to request for digital copy of all fields of information typically produced for every adult within Department of Correction database. 261 C. 86.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Hartford Courant Co. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 801 A.2d 759 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hartford Courant Co. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 801 A.2d 759 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 34× “The plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint with the commission, claiming that the fee to be charged should be governed by General Statutes §§ 1-211 (a) 5 6and 1-212 (b) of the act, rather than by § 29-11 (c).”
Clerk of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 895 A.2d 743 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 10× “However, it is also found that such new administrative procedures would be reasonable, and therefore that the records requested can `reasonably' be made available from the [computer system] for at least periodic inspection, as envisioned by § 1-211 .... `Periodic' might combine…”
Dir. of Health Affairs Policy Plan. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 977 A.2d 148 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “" See also General Statutes § 1-211 (disclosure of computer-stored public records).”
Bd. of Educ. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 545 A.2d 1064 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 2× “Under General Statutes § 1-211 (a), the fact that the board failed to respond to the request of the Jackson Newspapers within four business days is deemed to be a denial of the request.”
Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 662 A.2d 1251 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 1-211 (d) provides in relevant part: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of [the freedom of information commission] may appeal therefrom .”
Town of West Hartford v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 588 A.2d 1368 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 1-211 (a) provides: “Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four…”
Connecticut Alcohol & Drug Abuse Comm'n v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 657 A.2d 630 (Conn. 1995). “Failure to comply with a request to inspect or copy records under this section shall constitute a denial for the purposes of section 1-211. Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection or sub *32 section (b) of section l-21i to the contrary, if an employee’s collective…”
Sobocinski v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 566 A.2d 703 (Conn. 1989). “to 1987) § 1-211 (d) provided: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of said commission may appeal therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”
Glastonbury Educ. Ass'n v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 643 A.2d 1320 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 1-211 provides in pertinent part: “(b) Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-19 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by sections 1-15, l-18a, 1-19 to…”
Dir., Ret. & Benefits Servs. Div. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2358 (Conn. 2001). “” General Statutes § 1-206 (d), formerly § 1-211 (d), provides: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of said commission may appeal therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”
Chief of Police v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 746 A.2d 1264 (Conn. 2000). ““(b) The fee for any copy provided in accordance with subsection (a) of section 1-211 shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.”
Greenwich v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 9× “Accordingly, her request is governed by General Statutes § 1-211 (a), which provides that ‘‘[a]ny public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Informa- tion Act, a copy of any…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-211(a) — 1 case
Clerk of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 895 A.2d 743 (Conn. 2006). “However, it is also found that such new administrative procedures would be reasonable, and therefore that the records requested can `reasonably' be made available from the [computer system] for at least periodic inspection, as envisioned by § 1-211 .... `Periodic' might combine…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.