← Back to Search
Dreslinski, Michael v. Holden, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150438)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 06-11-2015
ClosedAppealDecision
SPR 20150438 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Dreslinski, Michael concerning records held by Holden, Town of - Police Department, opened 06-11-2015. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20150438
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Dreslinski, Michael
- Custodian
- Holden, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 06-11-2015
- Date Closed
- 07-23-2015
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 23, 2015 SPRlS/438 Chief David A. Armstrong Town of Holden Police Department 13 70 Main Street Holden, MA 01520 Dear Chief Armstrong: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of The Town of Holden 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 a copy of a correspondence from the Police Chief to a specifically named individual in response to a public records request. In a response dated May 27, 2015 the Department denied his request in its entirety citing to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department's response merely recited the exemptions without explaining any nexus to the responsive records. 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. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to each of the withheld records. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre Chief David A. Armstrong SPR15/438 Page Two July 23, 2015 I find that by merely citing the language from exemptions and failing to note the application of those exemptions to responsive records the Department has yet to meet its burden of specificity in denying access to public records. Accordingly, whereas the Department has not overcome the presumption that the requested records are public, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days ofthis 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 ust provide the responsive records. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski