Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20180544)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 1, 2018 SPRlS/544 Kathleen Bennett Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA O1 824 Dear Ms. Bennett: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Town of Chelmsford 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, Mr. Mazurczyk requested a copy ofrecords revealing the presence of firearms and licenses to carry firearms at four ( 4) identified addresses in the Town. In an April 19, 2018 response, the Town denied the request in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (i) of the Public Records Law. As a result, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned the Supervisor of Records, and this appeal was opened. 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). The Department's April 19, 2018 response In its April 19th response, the Department indicated that the record(s) must be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (i), because redaction of names and addresses will be futile in protecting the identities of any firearm licensees residing at the specific addresses in Mr. Mazurczyk's request. 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

Kathleen Bennett SPRIS/544 Page 2 May 1, 2018 Exemption 0) Exemption G) of the Public Records Law permits a records custodian to withhold in its entirety or withhold portions of records containing: the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearm identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards G. L. C. 4, § 7 (26)G). The purpose of Exemption G) is to prevent individuals with devious motives from ascertaining the identities of those who possess firearms. The scope of the exemption is limited to restricting the public disclosure of the name and address of the individual. A records custodian should withhold an entire firearms record if the requester knows with certainty that this particular record pertains to a specific address or individual. In this instance, where Mr. Mazurczyk has identified specific addresses, redaction of names and addresses is futile as it would not protect the identity of any license holder(s) in the Department's records that may reside at those addresses. See id.; see also G. L. c. 140, §§ 121- 131P. Therefore, the Department informed Mr. Mazurczyk in its April 19th response, that where the Department cannot redact the record(s) in such a manner that would protect the identity of any firearm licensees, the Department is required by statute to withhold the record in its entirety. Conclusion Accordingly, where I find the Department may properly withhold the records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption G), I consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mazurczyk is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, ~.~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk