Aisha M. Ellis v. Bourne, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20210397)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 2, 2021 SPR21/0397 Chief Dennis Woodside Chief of Police Town of Bourne Police Department 35 Armory Road Bourne, MA 02532 Dear Chief Woodside: I have received the petition of Attorney Aisha Ellis appealing the response of the Town of Bourne Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 30, 2020, Attorney Ellis requested an identified police report. The Department responded on November 30, 2020, which included a responsive record redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Ellis petitioned this office and this appeal SPR21/0397 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. Current Appeal In its November 30, 2020, response, the Department states “[e]nclosed is your requested record(s). The record(s) contained information that is exempt from public disclosure under MGL 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 Dennis Woodside SPR21/0397 Page 2 March 2, 2021 4§7.” The Department, citing Exemption (c), indicates “[t]he record(s) contained personnel, medical, or other information (name of hospital) that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In her appeal, Attorney Ellis states “[w]here the involved party herself is seeking said records, we see no reason why it should be withheld.” It is unclear what the basis of Attorney Ellis’s appeal is. Attorney Ellis is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Accordingly, Attorney Ellis must describe her specific objections to the Department’s November 30th response. Status of the requestor; reason for the request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of - - - - Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, the involved party’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. As such, Attorney Ellis may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records. Conclusion Based on the above, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Aisha Ellis, Esq.