MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Greta Jochem v. Northampton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20201305)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 08-05-2020

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20201305 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Greta Jochem concerning records held by Northampton, City of - Police Department, opened 08-05-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20201305
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Greta Jochem
Custodian
Northampton, City of - Police Department
Date Opened
08-05-2020
Date Closed
08-19-2020
Date Request Submitted
07-28-2020
Response Provided Date
07-29-2020
Time to Comply
1 Business Day

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 19, 2020 SPR20/1305 Jennifer DiCarlo Principal Records Clerk Northampton Police Department 21 Center street Northampton, MA 01060-3090 Dear Ms. Dicarlo: I have received the petition of Greta Jochem of the Daily Hampshire Gazette appealing the response of the Northampton Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 28, 2020, Ms. Jochem requested “[a]ny police report about ‘Sacred Elder,’ also known as Eddie Baratta, Eddie Bartok- Baratta, or ‘Samana’.” The Department provided a response on July 29, 2020, providing portions of the responsive records and denying access to other portions pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Jochem petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1305, 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, § 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, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a 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

Jennifer DiCarlo SPR20/1305 Page 2 August 19, 2020 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s July 29th response In its July 29, 2020 response, the Department states that it denied access to certain records pursuant to Exemption (a) and cites the language of the statute. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records 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, 377 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. Burden of specificity Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the Department merely cites Exemption (a) without any further explanation as to the exemption’s applicability to the responsive records. A records custodian is

Jennifer DiCarlo SPR20/1305 Page 3 August 19, 2020 required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department is advised that when claiming Exemption (a), a records custodian must cite a statute that either specifically or by necessary implication exempts the requested records from disclosure as required by the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(a). Consequently, I find the Department must cite a statute that specifically or by necessary implication permits it to withhold portions of the requested records from disclosure. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Jochem with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations as soon as practicable. 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: Greta Jochem