Dreslinski, Michael v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police (SPR 20150282)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords August 3, 2015 SPRlS/282 Ms. Jaclyn Zawada, Esq. Department of State Police 4 70 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Zawada: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski requested copies of records related to a March 11, 2007 incident, as well as copies of any records provided via facsimile by the Department to the Town of Erving Department of Police regarding the incident. In your January 15, 2015 response you stated that responsive materials include "portions of the State Police Athol March 11, 2007 Daily Administrative Log [Log] and an Officer Safety Bulletin [Bulletin]." The Department withheld the Bulletin in its entirety, citing the statutory exemption with respect to criminal offender record information, as well as the investigative and public safety exemptions to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a), (f), (n). It appears from your letter that you have also deemed the responsive portion of the Log to be exempt; however, you provided responsive portions to Mr. Dreslinski to him in his status as the subject of the record, not as a public record. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a), (f). Mr. Dreslinski appealed this response, stating his belief that, the Department is not permitted to "withhold any of the records or information [he] requested, as it has already been made public pursuant to a records request made to another law enforcement agency." With particular respect to the Bulletin, Mr. Dreslinski stated his belief that the Department "cannot withhold a record in its entirety simply because it contains some exempt material." The term "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). There is a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Jaclyn Zawada, Esq. SPR15/282 Page Two August 3, 2015 lO(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995), Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 65 (1976). While the Department response cites specific exemptions, the response does not specifically state how the exemptions apply to the withheld or redacted materials. Further, there is no blanket exemption for withholding public records. Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,289-90 (1979); District Attorney for the Norfolk District v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507,512 (1995); WBZ-TV4 v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 408 Mass. 595,603 (1990). Even if portions ofthe responsive records are exempt, those records may some non exempt information. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). Simply stating the language from the exemption in a denial of access to records fails to satisfy the burden of specificity in the Public Records Law to justify the withholding or redacting of that record. Accordingly, whereas the Department has not overcome the presumption that the withheld and redacted portions of the requested records are public, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (1 0) days of this order, to provide Mr. Dreslinski with the requested 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 written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. If there are any fees associated with this response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Once the fees are paid, you mus rovide the responsive records. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski