Renner, James v. Amherst, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150786)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams December 11, 2015 Supervisor ofR ecords SPRlS/786 Captain Jennifer A. Gunderson Town of Amherst Police Department 111 Main Street Amherst MA 01002 Dear Captain Gunderson: I have received the petition of James Renner appealing the response of Town of Amherst Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, the Mr. Renner requested a copy of an incident report concerning an accident occurring in February of 2004 in Amherst. In a response dated September 29, 2015 the Department indicated it would provide records responsive to the request with certain portions redacted. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) (c), (f). Further, the Department provided information related to fees association with obtaining copies of the redacted records. Mr. Renner objected to both the exemption claims as well as the fee estimate. 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 Department did not contain the specificity required in a denial of 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 of this order, to provide Mr. Renner a revised response, prepared in compliance with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. If the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must provide to Mr. Renner a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record or portion thereof. To meet the OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Captain Jennifer A. Gunderson SPR15/786 Page Two December 11, 2015 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. A records custodian is permitted to assess fees for the provision of public records. 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), custodia ofrecords shall provide written good faith estimate). Once the fees are paid, yo ust pr vide the responsive records. cc: Mr. James Renner