Seth Kershner v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20171060)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords August 11, 2017 SPR17/1060 Sergeant Bryan Nadeau Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Sergeant Nadeau: I have received the petition of Seth Kershner appealing the response of the City of Fall River Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Kershner requested "After-action" reports of the Department's Emergency Services Unit from January 1, 2015 until the present. The Department provided Mr. Kershner with redacted "After-action" reports." Mr. Kershner appealed the redactions to the "Execution" section of the reports. Prior appeal and determination The responsive records were the subject of a prior appeal and determination. See SPRl 7/800 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2017). In my June determination, I found that the Department in its May 25th response did not meet its burden of specifically explaining how Exemptions (f) and (n) of the Public Records Law were applied to withhold the After-Action Reports in their entirety. In July, the Department provided Mr. Kershner with the reports, redacting certain information within the content of the records. However, it is unclear what information was redacted, which exemptions the Department is claiming, and how the exemptions claimed are applied to each particular section ofredacted information. Objecting to the redactions, Mr. Kershner petitioned the Supervisor. 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 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

Sgt. Bryan Nadeau SPRl 7/1060 Page2 August 11, 2017 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. An attorney in the Public Records Division contacted you on August 10th, and provided a copy of the file associated with this appeal via email to assist the Department in providing a detailed response concerning the redaction of the Execution Section of each of the reports. Order Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Kershner with a detailed response concerning the applicable exemptions the Department has claimed to redact the Execution Section of each report, 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. Kershner 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: Seth Kershner