Michael Dreslinski v. Holden, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20160206)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords April 6, 2016 SPR16/206 Chief David A. Armstrong Town of Holden Police Department 1370 Main Street Holden, MA 01520 Dear Chief Armstrong: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Town of Holden 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 certain Department policies and procedures. In a response dated February 5, 2016 the Department provided Mr. Dreslinski with a good faith fee estimate for the provision ofrecords 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 redaction pursuant to Exemption (b) may be applicable to any responsive records. If, upon payment of the estimated fee by Mr. Dreslinski, the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must provide to a written explanation, with specificity, how Exemption (b) or any other 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. Dreslinski t responsive records would be "subject to redaction," as would any government record. h eas I find the Department has not yet asserted an exemption, I will consider this adminis at e ppeal closed. urs, cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre