Michael Dreslinski v. Leominster, City of - Police Department (SPR 20171336)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords September 26, 2017 SPR17/1336 Paula Ouellette City of Leominster - Police Department 29 Church Street Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Ms. Ouellette: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the City of Leominster-Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 15, 2017, Mr. Dreslinski requested a "Daily Police Log 08-01-2017 through 08-14-2017" and a "[b]lank (unused) copy ofthe 'form' used by Leominster Police [to] record evidence collected, which is commonly called an 'evidence log'." The Department provided a response on August 24, 2017, in which it provided records to the first request and denied access to the second request without citing an Exemption to the Public Records Law. Mr. Dreslinski appealed the blanket denial of his second request. 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, § 10A(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, § 10(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, § 1 O(b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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

Paula Ouellette SPR17/1336 Page2 September 26, 2017 Tlte Department's August 2l" response In the Department's August 24111 response, the Department indicated that" ... to your request for a blank unused copy form of records evidence collected, this is an investigative tool and cannot be given out." Order In the Department's response it cited no exemption to the Public Record Law, neither did it cite with any specificity the application of any exemption to the records. I find that the Department has failed to respond to a request for public records. Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Dreslinski with a revised response, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Dreslinski may appeal the substantive nature of the response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Dreslinski