Andrew Quemere v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20201644)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 24, 2020 SPR20/1644 Officer Louis F. Vezina Jr. Records Access Officer Chicopee Police Department 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA 01020 Dear Officer Vezina Jr.: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere appealing the response of the Chicopee 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 August 24, 2020, Mr. Quemere requested the following categories of requests: [1] The police department’s current use-of-force policies [2] A blank copy of each form used to report use-of-force incidents (if the form is part of a computer program and is not easily exportable, it is acceptable to provide screenshots) [3] All division-wide and department-wide use-of-force reports/audits for the years 2010 to the present (by division-wide and department-wide, I mean reports/audits that examine use of force by an entire division or the entire department, not reports/audits about a specific use-of-force incident) [4] All data on the number of use-of-force incidents for the years 2010 to the present [5] All data on the total number of use-of-force incidents involving each Department employee[.] The Department provided a response dated September 10, 2020, which included responsive records in redacted form pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Quemere petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1644, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all 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 Vezina Jr. SPR20/1644 Page 2 September 24, 2020 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s September 10th response In its September 10, 2020 response, the Department states that it redacted “. . . the name of each employee as is contains intimate details of a highly personal nature and are not public record pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 §7(26)(c).” The Department explains that “. . . while the information does not clearly fall into one of the specific categories[,] [marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes, and reputation,] the information is intimate detail of highly personal nature.” The Department posits that “[w]hile there is certainly a public interest to know how many use of force incidents have occurred during the time frame you have provided for your request, there is no public interest in knowing what officer had a use of force incident. Specifically, revealing the names of officers, may place the officer or their family members in imminent danger given the current ‘anti-police climate’ in our country. For example if names are revealed, the general public could use other resources to find out officers and their family members home addresses and telephone numbers and target them for the purposes of embarrassment, humiliation, intimidation, threats of bodily harm or damage to personal property, or actual bodily harm or damage to personal property. The same logic applies as to why the home addresses, personal email address, and home telephone number of a public employee is considered exempt under Exemption (o).” In his appeal petition, Mr. Quemere states that the Department “. . . has provided most of the responsive records; however, it will not provide a list showing the number of use-of force incidents per each department employee, citing the privacy exemption. The department did not provide any specific explanation for how this exemption would apply to the requested record nor can I imagine how this exemption would apply to such a record.”

Officer Louis Vezina Jr. SPR20/1644 Page 3 September 24, 2020 Based on the Department’s response and Mr. Quemere’s petition, it is unclear what Mr. Quemere is appealing. In a telephone conversation with a representative of the Department, this office was notified that the Department provided the numbers responsive to Mr. Quemere’s request. If Mr. Quemere would like to obtain copies of records aside from what has been provided, Mr. Quemere is advised that he should make a separate public records request to the Department. Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Conclusion Accordingly, Mr. Quemere may wish to modify and/or clarify his request in order to reasonably describe the requested records or clarify the nature of his appeal. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f) (all petitions for appeal shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to provide a timely response). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Quemere