Andrew Quemere v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20201691)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 28, 2020 SPR20/1691 Lieutenant John Azzari Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Parkway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Lieutenant Azzari: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere appealing the response of the Revere 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 records: [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[]. On September 11, 2020, the Department provided a response, including responsive records. The Department also indicated that it did not possess certain records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Quemere petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1691, 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 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

Lieutenant John Azzari SPR20/1691 Page 2 September 28, 2020 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 11th response In its September 11, 2020 response, the Department provided records responsive to items 1 and 4, but indicated that it did not possess records responsive to items 2, 3, and 5. In his appeal petition, Mr. Quemere states “[i]n response to my request, the Revere Police Department has provided response records. However, the department appears to have removed searchable text from documents that originated in an electronic format.” Based on Mr. Quemere’s claim, I find the Department must explain whether it provided the records in a machine readable format. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, “[t]he records access officer shall, to the extent feasible, provide the public record in the requestor’s preferred format or, in the absence of a preferred format, in a searchable, machine readable format.” See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). Mr. Quemere further states “. . . the department has redacted information from some of the documents but has not identified any exemptions to the public records law or explained with specificity how the exemptions apply. Please order the department to comply with the public records law.” Accordingly, based on the Department’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Quemere’s claim, it is unclear whether the Department redacted information from the provided records and if so, what exemption(s) it is claiming permits the redactions. The Department is not permitted to issue a blanket denial without providing any further information with respect to the requested records. As a result, I find the Department has not satisfied its burden in responding to this records request. The Department is advised that a records custodian is 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 and its Regulations. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv).

Lieutenant John Azzari SPR20/1691 Page 3 September 28, 2020 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Quemere with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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: Andrew Quemere