MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Rousseau, John v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police (SPR 20150899)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 12-10-2015

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20150899 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Rousseau, John concerning records held by Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police, opened 12-10-2015. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20150899
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Rousseau, John
Custodian
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police
Date Opened
12-10-2015
Date Closed
12-14-2015

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 December 14, 2015 SPRlS/899 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 John Rousseau 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. Rousseau records related to him maintained by the Commonwealth Fusion Center. In a response dated October 27, 2015 the Department provided Mr. Rousseau with a good faith fee estimate for the provision of records responsive to his request. The basis of his petition is his contention that the Department denied him access to records without justification. As stated below, I find the Department has not yet asserted an exemption. In its response the Department indicated that any responsive records would be "subject to redaction." If, upon payment of the estimated fee by Mr. Rousseau, the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must provide to 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. I find the Department merely notified Mr. Rousseau the responsive records would be "subject to redaction," as would any government record. Whereas I find the Department has not yet asserted an exemption, I will consider this a~tosed. ~A. Williams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. John Rousseau OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre