Taylor S. Lavallee v. Springfield, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20221508)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 15, 2022 SPR22/1508 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor Law Department City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Taylor S. Lavallee, Esq., of Raipher, P.C., appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 21, 2022, Attorney Lavallee requested: 1. A copy of the Springfield Police Department’s policies and procedures in place on the date of September 29, 2020; 2. A copy of the user and/or training manual for the Springfield Police Department’s electronic control weapons between the dates of September 2015 to present; 3. All documents, media, and training materials related to the Springfield Police Department’s electronic control weapons officer training between the dates of September 2015 to present; 4. A list of all instructors employed and/or appointed to instruct Springfield Police Officers on the use of electronic control weapons between the dates of September 2015 to present; 5. Copies of all certifications obtained and maintained by all instructors employed and/or appointed to instruct Springfield Police Officers on the use of electronic control weapons between the dates of September 2015 to present; 6. A copy of electronic control weapon form and/or report completed by [a named individual], and/or any other Springfield Police Officer related to the use of the same on [a named individual] on September 29, 2020; 7. Copies of all annual analysis reports of uses of electronic control weapons by the Springfield Police Department between the dates of September 2015 to present; 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR22/1508 Page 2 July 15, 2022 8. Copies of all arrest reports for [a named individual] on the date of September 29, 2020, including all Springfield Police officer and supervisor narratives; 9. A copy of all Internal Investigations Unit (IIU/IA) reports concerning the arrest of [a named individual] on the date of September 29, 2020; 10. A copy of the Internal Investigations Unit (IIU/IA) history for [a named individual] from his date of hire to present, including but not limited to: all special reports, citizen complaints, memorandums, narratives, and correspondence; 11. A copy of all performance ratings for [a named individual] from his due date of hire to present; 12. A copy of all City of Springfield Community Police Hearing Board Case Reviews for [a named individual] from his date of hire to present; 13. A copy of all City of Springfield Community Police Hearing Board Care Reviews concerning the use of electronic control weapons from September 2015 to present; 14. A copy of all body-worn camera audio/video from the arrest of [a named individual] on the date of September 29, 2020; and 15. A copy of all photographs (in JPEG form) bearing images of the injuries and/or arrest of [a named individual] on the date of September 29, 2020. On May 6, 2022 and June 8, 2022, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Attorney Lavallee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1508, 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 agency or municipality 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. Att’y 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.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR22/1508 Page 3 July 15, 2022 The City’s May 6th and June 8th Responses In a May 6, 2022 response, the City stated, “[p]ersonnel in the City is requiring a 10-day extension to continue the efforts to fulfil your public records request.” In a June 8, 2022 response, the City stated, “[p]lease be advised the City is requiring an additional 15-day extension to continue to work with the [Springfield Police Department] to obtain the responsive documents of your public records request.” In another June 8, 2022 response, the City stated, “[p]ersonnel in [Springfield Police Department] have submitted two records as being responsive to your request.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Attorney Lavallee states that: On May 6, 2022, I was advised that the City required a ten-day extension to fulfill my records request. I assented to this extension on May 9, 2022. Approximately one month later, on June 8, 2022, I was advised that the City needed an additional 15-day extension to “continue to work with the SPD to obtain the responsive documents” to my public records request. On that date, the City produced two out of the fifteen requested documents. The City further advised me that they had a high volume of requests. To date, it is well past sixty days from my original public records request on April 21, 2022. The City has failed to provide more than two of the fifteen requested records….The City has failed to provide an adequate response as to their failure to provide the specific documents requested and has failed to describe the magnitude or difficulty of the request requiring additional time. Based on the City’s responses, in conjunction with Attorney Lavallee’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the original request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the City must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Lavallee 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.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR22/1508 Page 4 July 15, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Taylor S. Lavallee, Esq., Raipher, P.C.