Julian Castle Logan v. Everett, City of - Police Department (SPR 20170413)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 12, 2017 SPR17/413 Captain Paul Hamilton Records Access Officer Support Services Division City of Everett Police Department 45 Elm Street Everett, MA 02149 Dear Captain Hamilton: I have received the petition of Julian Castle Logan (formerly known as Joao Pedro Barbosa) appealing the response of the City of Everett Police Department (Department) to a request for fublic records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 14th and February 5t , Mr. Logan requested a copy ofrecords regarding an identified person, specifically: 1. The evidence log book showing property removed from the identified person, 2. Any record showing the name of the Department officer who booked the identified person, 3. Any record showing whether the property was returned to the identified person, and 4. The complaint regarding any charge(s) the identified person was booked for. Mr. Logan's Request Number 2 was the subject of prior appeal in which Mr. Logan stated that the Department did not provide him with a response to his February 5, 2017 request. Whereas, the Department provided the Public Records Division with a copy of their February 61h response to Mr. Logan, I closed the appeal. See SPRl 7 /278 Determination of Supervisor of Records (March 15, 2017). The basis of Mr. Logan's current appeal is that he was informed in the Department's January 2ih response that a record responsive does exist regarding the identified person, and that the Department is withholding the record pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Mr. Logan has also appealed the Department's February 6th response stating that it has no record responsive to the date provided for the date that the identified person may have been booked by the Department, specifically, "February 24-26, 2017." In fact, Mr. Logan has provided the Department with conflicting information on the year of the booking. In one letter he states, "2014" and in another he states, "2017." One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Captain Paul Hamilton SPR17/413 Page 2 April 12, 2017 Status of the Requester While Mr. Logan may be seeking records that pertain to his arrest and incarceration and those of another person that may have been involved in the underlying criminal matter, the Public Records Law does not distinguish between individuals seeking public records. Mr. Logan should be advised that his status as the subject of the records and that of an identified person offers him no greater right of access than any other person in the public realm. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a) (public records are to be provided to "any person"); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record, regardless of the circumstances of the requester. Accordingly, Mr. Logan's status will play no role in a determination regarding the Public Records Law. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(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, § 1O (b )(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507,511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. To assist in requesting and responding to requests for public records please refer to our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet, free of charge, at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Public Records Division attorneys are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. In addition, Public Records Division staff members will visit a records custodian in person to conduct training workshops on the Public Records Law upon request. The Department has claimed that the requested records cannot be provided regarding the identified person because the record(s) are exempt by statute. You informed Mr. Logan that the record(s) involve a juvenile and that under G. L. c. 119, § 60A regarding juvenile delinquency the records are not public. In order to withhold records or content of records, the records custodian has the burden of stating what particular records it has that are being withheld, and

Captain Paul Hamilton SPR17/413 Page 3 April 12, 2017 specifically how the exemption and/or statute applies to each individual record to withhold it from public disclosure. In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requesters in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The Department has not met its burden of proving that all the records may be withheld under the juvenile delinquency statute. Please be advised that statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and not blanket in nature; any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289- 90 (1979); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a). The Department must also clarify what records it has in its custody that are responsive to the requests and provide Mr. Logan with a detailed response. Order Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Logan with a detailed response to his requests, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. 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. Mr. Logan may appeal the substantive nature of the response within ninety (90) calendar days. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Julian Castle Logan