Myers, David v. Everett, City of - Police Department (SPR 20150742)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 19,2015 SPRlS/742 Captain Paul Landry City of Everett Police Department 45 Elm Street Everett, MA 02149 Dear Chief Landry: I have received the petition of David Meyers appealing the response of City of Everett 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, on August 31, 2015 Mr. Myers requested copies of records regarding Detective Robert Hall related to an investigation involving a specific address in the City of Everett. In a response date September 8, 2015 the Department denied his request in its entirety citing Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 24 §7(26)(f). The Department provided no further substantive explanation in support of its Exemption (f) claim for withholding 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). Unfortunately, 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

Captain Paul Landry SPR15/742 Page Two October 19, 2015 Accordingly, whereas 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. Myers 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. Myers 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 ($1 0.00), custodian ofrecords shall provide written good faith estimate). Once the fees are paid, you must provide the responsive records. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. David Myers