Brian Keaney v. Dedham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20200038)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords January 23, 2020 SPR20/038 . Officer Ron Pucci Dedham Police Department 600 High Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Officer Pucci: I have received the petition of Brian Keaney appealing the response of the Dedham 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. Keaney requested a report regarding an identified incident. The Department responded on October 23, 2019 by denying access to the responsive record. Previous appeal This requestwas the subject of previous appeals. See SPRl 9/1667 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 29, 2019); SPR19/2310 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 23, 2019). In my December 23rd determinatio11 I ordered the Department to · provide Mr. Keaney with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The Department subsequently provided Mr. Keaney a redacted report. Mr. Keaney appealed and SPR20/038 was opened as a result. 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, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507,511 (l995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian One Ashbmion Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Officer Ron Pucci SPR20/038 Page 2 January 23, 2020 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted po1iion of the responsive record. Current appeal In an October 23, 2019 response the Department asserted "[i]t was a medical emergency which cannot be released." In my December 23rd determination I found that upon in camera review of the record submitted, although portions of the record contain medical information, the Department had not established how the record may be withheld in its entirety under an exemption. Specifically, it was unclear why the Department could not provide the record in a de identified manner. Subsequent to this determination, the Department provided Mr. Keaney a redacted version of the responsive record. In his appeal petition Mr. Keaney indicates the report" ... was heavily redacted with much more than just the personally identifiable information removed. There was also no cover letter or other explanation about why there were so many redactions." Mr. Keaney asks this office to" ... order the Department to deliver a copy of the report with only the personally identifiable information of the person experiencing the medical emergency redacted, or for the Department to provide an explanation for the other redactions." I find the Depaiiment has not established how each redaction is supported by an exemption to the Public Records Law; in paiiicular, it is unclear which exemption(s) the Department is relying on. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a)-(v). When withholding requested records, a records custodian is required to provide a response that identifies "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." G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv). The Department must provide a response that meets this criteria. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 3 78 Mass. 281, 289- 90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Depmiment is ordered to provide Mr. Keaney with a response to the request, 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, ~u~ Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Keaney