William King v. Agawam, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20191628)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 12, 2019 SPR19/1628 Eric P. Gillis Chief of Police Agawam Police Depaiiment 681 Springfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Dear Chief Gillis: I have received the petition of William King appealing the response of the Agawam Police Depaiiment (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. King requested records concerning a "complaint ... dated between 4-5-19 and 5-20-19." Unsatisfied with the Depaiiment's response in which they note their intention to deny Mr. King's tequest citing Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, Mr. King petitioned this office and this appeal was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclesure 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, § lO(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. The Department's response A representative from the Department responded to Mr. King's request with a response sent on August 7, 2019. In their response, the Depaiiment asserts that the "[r]ecord is prohibited from release." 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

Chief Gillis SPR19/1628 Page 2 August 12, 2019 Exemption (a) The Department asse1ts that the records are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (a). Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding ofrecords that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 3 77 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either "shall not be a public record," "shall be kept confidential" or "shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law." The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Conclusion I find that the Department did not met its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. In a conversation with a staff member from the Public Records Division, the Department noted that they would be willing to provide a subsequent response. Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. King with a written response in accordance with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations and this order within ten business days. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. King may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). tJ~:l:, .. ~ M ~ · 0-- Supervisor ot::~~rds cc: William G. King III