Hector E. Pineiro v. Worcester, City of - Law Department (SPR 20201827)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 13, 2020 SPR20/1827 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Vigneux: I have received the petition of Hector Pineiro, Esq. of the Law Office of Hector E. Pineiro, PC (Law Office) appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on September 11, 2020, Attorney Pineiro requested the following records: 1. Any incident report, supplemental reports, daily log, summary, IDC reports or supplemental police reports relative to a pedestrian accident between a snowplow truck owned by Cutler Management and [an identified individual], 2. Copy of the entire accident reconstruction of this incident by the Worcester Police Crash unit, i.e., plans, sketches, reconstruction calculations, photographs of the scene, recorded statements of percipient witnesses, statements given by Ms. Hart, recorded statement of the driver, any black box data analysis, copy of video surveillance tapes secured by crime scene investigation or by the crash unit that captured the collision between [the identified individual] and the Cutler Management snowplow truck. 3. Any 911 calls to the WPD from witnesses reporting the subject crash at the intersection of Maple and Main Street. 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). 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

Michael Vigneux SPR20/1827 Page 2 October 13, 2020 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. Current appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Pineiro states: [T]he City responded with a copy of the initial police report. . . . As part of the public records request we asked more than the incident report that was just provided to us by the City. We requested a copy of the Crash Reconstruction report, photographs, videos etc. The police incident report states that “A complete crash reconstruction report will be completed.” No information was provided by the City responsive to initial public records request and the City has not provided any information from its crash reconstruction report. We did not receive any response within the time period they are required to respond pursuant to G.L.c 66, § 10(a-b) 950 CMR 32.06 (2)(a). In an email correspondence dated October 6, 2020, a representative from the Law Office informed this office that on September 25, 2020, the City provided a partial response, and has requested additional 15 business days to respond to items 1 and 2. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Attorney Pineiro may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s supplemental response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Hector Pineiro, Esq.