← Back to Search
Michael J. Shivick v. West Brookfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20201956)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 10-13-2020
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20201956 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Michael J. Shivick concerning records held by West Brookfield, Town of - Police Department, opened 10-13-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20201956
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Michael J. Shivick
- Date Opened
- 10-13-2020
- Date Closed
- 10-15-2020
- Date Request Submitted
- 09-23-2020
- Response Provided Date
- 10-13-2020
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- NA
- Went to Court
- No
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 October 15, 2020 SPR20/1956 C. Thomas O’Donnell, Jr. Chief of Police West Brookfield Police Department P.O. Box 671 2 East Main Street West Brookfield, MA 01585 Dear Chief O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Attorney Michael J. Shivick appealing the nonresponse of the West Brookfield 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 September 23, 2020, Attorney Shivick requested “body cam and related footage related to a landlord-tenant incident.” 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 theNorfolk 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. Subsequent to the intervention by a member of the Public Records Division, I learned that the Department provided Attorney Shivick a response dated October 13, 2020. 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 Chief O’Donnell SPR20/1956 Page 2 October 15, 2020 Conclusion In light of the Department’s October 13th letter, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Attorney Shivick may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Michael J. Shivick, Esq.