Dreslinski, Michael v. Shirley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20140751)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A Williams Supervisor ofR ecords March 9, 2015 SPR141751 Ms. Ann M. Whiting Executive Assistant Town of Shirley Police Department 11 Keady Way Shirley MA, 01464 Dear Ms. Whiting I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Town of Shirley Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski requested a copy of Department records related to fire alarm box theft or tampering. The Department's written response to Mr. Dreslinski did not clearly state whether any responsive records exist. The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Public records and any non-exempt, segregable portions thereof, are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are not blanket in nature). 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. If no records exist a custodian must so inform the requester in its response. In the event the custodian intends to withhold records 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). The Department is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and its OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma.us/pre

Ms. Ann M. Whiting SPR14/751 Page Two March 9, 2015 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. Accordingly, whereas the response from the Department was unclear as to the existence of responsive records the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days ofthis order, to review its records and provide a detailed response to Mr. Dreslinski, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Access Regulations. If there are no responsive records the Department must so state in a written response to Mr. Dreslinski. If the Department maintains that any responsive records are exempt it must, within ten (10) days provide to Mr. Dreslinski an explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. This administrative appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski