Dreslinski, Michael v. Town of, Orange - Police Department (SPR 20150177)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 7, 2015 SPRlS/177 Ms. Brenda L. Anderson Town of Orange-Police Department 400 East River Street Orange, MA 01364 Dear Ms. Anderson: I have received the petition of Michael Dres1inski appealing the response of the Town of Orange -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 reports and any other records related to specific incidents. You provided redacted copies of the requested records but did not provide an explanation for the redactions. 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). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department's response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the Department redacted certain information within the responsive records without providing a cover letter that explained how an exemption justifies each redaction. As a result, I find that the Department failed to satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. The Department is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of an exemption to the redacted records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Brenda L. Anderson SPR15/177 Page Two May 7, 2015 Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days ofthis order, to provide Mr. Dreslinski with umedacted copies ofthe responsive records. If the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days, provide to Mr. Dreslinski a cover letter specifically stating how a particular exemption applies to each redaction. ours, cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski