Dreslinski, Michael v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police (SPR 20150523)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords September 28, 2015 SPRlS/523 Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. Department of State Police Office of the Chief Legal Counsel 470 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 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski copies of records related to a vehicle stop/incident on or about April25, 2007 involving him. In a response dated April22, 2015 the Department provided Mr. Dreslinski with responsive record with certain information redacted citing to Exemptions (c) and (f), the privacy and investigatory exemptions to the Public Records Law. The basis of Mr. Dreslinki's appeal is that he believes the redacted information should be made public. 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, § 1 0( 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 spec(ficity 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

Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. SPR15/523 Page Two September 28, 2015 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 must provide the responsive records. cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski