Eyler, Dean v. Needham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150205)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords April 28, 2015 SPRlS/205 Sergeant Richard Forbes Town ofNeedham Police Department 99 School Street Needham, MA 02492 Dear Sargent Forbes: I have received the petition of Dean C. Eyler Esq., on behalf of Michelle Saipe appealing the response ofthe Town ofNeedham (Town) Police Department (Department) to her request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Ms. Saipe requested copies of records related to an incident report IR14-1654. In a response dated March 12, 2015 the Department denied Ms. Saipe's request in its entirety. The Department's response came on a boilerplate form. The form indicates that the Department was withholding all responsive records citing Exemption (c), the privacy exemption to the Public Records Law. The Department provided no additional information to support its exemption claim. 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); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). The response by the Department did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. 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. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Sergeant Richard Forbes SPR15/205 Page Two April28, 2015 This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. I find the Department has failed to meet its burden of specificity in denying access to public records. Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to provide all responsive records to Attorney Eyler in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. If the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days provide to Attorney Eyler a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each re ord. This administrative appeal is now closed. wn illiams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Dean C. Eyler, Esq.