Dreslinski, Michael v. Concord, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20140204)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division May 8, 2014 Shawn A Williams Supervisor ofR ecords SPR14/204 Det. Sgt. Joseph Morahan Town of Concord-Police Department 219 Walden Street, P.O. Box 519 Concord, MA 01742 Dear Det. Sgt. Morahan: I have received the petition of Mr. Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Town of Concord-Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski requested copies of all reports maintained by the Department regarding himself. The Department provided Mr. Dreslinski with copies of dispatch logs with the narrative redacted. Thereupon, Mr. Dreslinski submitted this appeal claiming that the Department has not met its burden under the Public Record Law in withholding the redacted information. In an effort to assist the Department in meeting its burden under the Public Records Law my office has placed at least three (3) telephone calls to your office regarding this issue and on April 8, 2014 my office emailed the Department a copy ofthe file regarding this appeal. As of the date of this Determination the Department has not responded to these efforts. Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (10) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. The Department is advised that all records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response. The ten-day provision is a maximum, rather than a minimum, time frame for complying with a public records request. The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). Accordingly, the Department is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and Regulations it must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Det. Sgt. Joseph Morahan SPR14/204 Page Two May 8, 2014 Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days ofthis order, to provide Mr. Dreslinski with the requested records, or provide to this office, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. If the Department is planning to charge for the cost of complying with this public records request, Mr. Dreslinski must be provided with a detailed written, good faith estimate on each particular request. Once the Department receives the estimate funds, the records must be provided. Failure to comply with this administrative order may result in the filing of a complaint for enforcement in the Superior Court by Mr. Dreslinski. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski