Ryan Murphy v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20160546)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 07-25-2016

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20160546 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Ryan Murphy concerning records held by Boston, City of - Police Department, opened 07-25-2016. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

View PDF Download PDF

Case Details

Case Number: 20160546
Case Type: Appeal
Case Subtype: Initial
Status: Closed
Requester: Ryan Murphy
Custodian: Boston, City of - Police Department
Date Opened: 07-25-2016
Date Closed: 07-29-2016

View on official site →

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Shawn A. Williams July 29, 2016 Supervisor of Records SPR16/546

Ms. Katherine Hoffman, Esq. Legal Department

Boston Police Department One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120

Dear Ms. Hoffman:

I have received the petition of Ryan Murphy appealing the nonresponse of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Murphy requested all police reports involving any firearms, including but not limited to recovered firearms, shootings, reports of shots fired, not limited to specifically identified addresses and a.specific time period. Mr. Murphy also requested all shot spotter alerts for the specific location and dates. Having received no response, Mr. Murphy petitioned this office.

Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (10) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. All records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response.

Subsequent to the intervention by a member of my staff, the Department informed this office that it acknowledged the request and informed Mr. Murphy how and when the response would be provided. Accordingly, I will consider this appeal closed with the proviso that the Department provide Mr. Murphy a response to the request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Mr. Murphy may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2).

Very truly yours,