Quemere, Andrew v. Framingham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150247)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 12,2015 SPRlS/247 Lieutenant Stephen A. Cronin Town of Framingham Police Department 1 William Welch Way Framingham MA 01702 Dear Lieutenant Cronin: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere of the Bay State Examiner appealing the response of the Town of Framingham Police Department (Department) to his February 24, 2015 request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Quemere requested copies of an incident report and records related to an internal affairs investigation. In a response dated March 13,2015, seventeen days after the request, the Department denied his request in its entirety stating the criminal case associated with the incident has not been adjudicated further citing to Exemption (f) the investigatory exemption of the Public Records Law. The Department provided no further information for the withholding of the records. The Department also failed to advise Mr. Queme re of his right to appeal the Department's response. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1) (burden on custodian to respond in ten days, state reason for denial, advise requester of remedies). 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). 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 its Access Regulations it must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Lieutenant Stephen A. Cronin SPR15/247 Page Two May 12, 2015 records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. Accordingly, whereas I find the Department has not satisfied its mandatory burden of specificity, the Department is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Quemere with the 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. Quemerel a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record, alo with a custodial index. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(8). This administrative appeal is now closed. cc: Mr. Andrew Quemere