Joel Inbody v. University of Massachusetts Amherst - Police Department (SPR 20210130)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records February 2, 2021 SPR21/0130 Ian Cyr Deputy Chief University of Massachusetts Amherst – Police Department 585 East Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Deputy Chief Cyr: I have received the petition of Joel Inbody appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Inbody requested “. . . any records tied to my name in the records of university police between 9/1/2018 and 9/1/2019. I would especially like a copy of the email attached to 19-275-OF.” The Department responded on January 8, 2021, denying access to the responsive email record pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Inbody petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/0130, 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

Deputy Chief Ian Cyr SPR21/0123 Page 2 February 3, 2021 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s January 8th response In its January 8, 2021 response, the Department indicates that it does not possess any records tied to Mr. Inbody’s name between 9/1/2018 and 9/1/2019. In regards to “. . . the email attached to 19-275-OF,” the Department, citing the language of Exemption (f) asserts “[p]ursuant to the language in this exemption, we are not obligated to, nor will we, provide you with this email which identifies person(s) who provided information to the police department as doing so would directly identify those person(s). . . .” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that on February 2, 2021, the Department provided Mr. Inbody with a supplemental response pertaining to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Inbody 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: Joel Inbody