Dreslinski, Michael v. Sterling, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150654)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 15,2015 SPRlS/654 Chief Gary M. Chamberland Town of Sterling-Police Department 135 Leominster Road Sterling, MA 01564 Dear Chief Chamberland: I have received the petition ofMichael Dreslinski appealing the response of Town of Sterling 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 copies of records regarding four separate instances: 1. 4/16/2007- traffic light damage: 2. 5/29/2007- theft of property; 3. 6/11/2007-theft of Leominster Police property; and 8/12/2007-arson. The Department provided records responsive to his requests with certain information redacted. The basis of Mr. Dreslinski' s appeal is that the Department provided no explanation for its withholding of the redacted information. 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). Public records and any non-exempt, segregable portions thereof, are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm'r ofBoston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are not blanket in nature). 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); 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. To comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations a records custodian 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 the requested records. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Chief Gary M. Chamberland SPR15/654 Page Two October 15, 2015 Accordingly, whereas the Department has not overcome the presumption that 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 (10) 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, § 10(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. rs, cc: Michael Dreslinski