Greg Saulmon v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20181243)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords August 30, 2018 SPRlS/1243 Officer Louis F. Vezina, Jr. Chicopee Police Department Bureau of Services Records Access Officer 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA O1 013 Dear Officer Vezina: I have received the petition of Greg Saulmon of The Republican appealing the response of the Chicopee 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. Saulmon requested several categories of records, including emails, text messages, and memos, related to an identified incident and certain individuals. The Department responded on August 13, 2018 by denying access to responsive records. 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, § 1 OA( 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, § 1 O(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). Current appeal In its August 13th response the Department asserts "[e]ffective July 27, 2018 Per Assistant District Attorney Max Bennett the police report in question and any information pertaining to the case is not to be released. If there are any questions, you can direct them to ADA Bennett at 413-747-1000. THIS REPORT WILL NOT BE RELEASED BY THE 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

Officer Louis F. Vezina, Jr. SPR18/1243 Page 2 August 30, 2018 CHICOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT" (emphasis in original). In an email dated August23, 2018 you explain that a press release regarding the incident would be distributed soon. In his appeal petition Mr. Saulmon indicates it is unclear whether the Department possesses responsive records and also notes "The Republican's July 31 request did not ask for this police report. We argue that under the law, refusing to release a document that wasn't requested does not serve as an adequate reason to deny access to records that were requested" ( emphasis in original). Burden ofS pecificity Based on the Department's responses, I find it has not met its burden to identify which responsive records are in its possession; particularly records other than the police report. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(ii)-(iii) (a municipality shall identify any public records or categories of public records sought that are not within the possession, custody, or control of the municipality and identify the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody or control of the public record sought, if known). The Department also has not established how an exemption applies to withhold responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b )(iv) (a municipality shall identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based); Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). Conclusion Given that the Department did not meet its burden to explain how an exemption applies to the records, the Department is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Mr. Saulmon with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 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. Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Saulmon