Allison Jarmanning v. Worcester, City of - Police Department (SPR 20211684)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 21, 2021 SPR21/1684 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received the petition of Allison Jarmanning appealing the response of the City of Worcester Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 28, 2021, Ms. Jarmanning requested “incident reports and 911 calls for several individuals and addresses.” The Department provided responses to the requests on June 28 & 29, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Jarmanning petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/1684, 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 custodian must provide the responsive 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR21/1684 Page 2 July 21, 2021 The Department’s June 28th & 29th responses In its June 28 & 29, 2021 responses, the Department cited Exemption (a) in each of the 5 responses stating “[i]f the requested records exist, they would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a).” The Department explained “[r]ecords which contain reports of domestic violence or sexual assault are not public records and the City is required to withhold such records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §97D. If the requested records exist, they would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §97D.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. The statute states in relevant part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality . . . G. L. c. 41, § 97D.

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR21/1684 Page 3 July 21, 2021 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type(s) of records are being withheld from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Further, it is uncertain how the withheld records fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41 § 97D. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Jarmanning 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: Allison Jarmanning Mike Vigneux, RAO