Laura H. Ortiz v. Lynn, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20222636)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 1, 2022 SPR22/2636 Lieutenant Paul Cotter Records Department Lynn Police Department 300 Washington Street Lynn, MA 01902 Dear Lieutenant Cotter: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the Lynn Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 25, 2022, Ms. Ortiz requested the following records: [1] …the investigation of text messages between officer [and] investigation report and all records submitted to the Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission; [2] …all internal affairs records for the eight officers who resigned, or were terminated, or were suspended as a result of the investigation. [3] any records that are additionally responsive and were forwarded to the Lynn Police Department from the Salem Police Department relating to [1] abd [sic] [2] [4] any subsequent released records relating to [1], [2], or [3] as of the time Lynn Police Department sends any response to us if readily available[.] Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR22/0638 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 30, 2022); SPR22/1350 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 24, 2022); SPR22/1562 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 22, 2022); SPR22/1846 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 24, 2022); SPR22/2230 Determination of Supervisor of Records (October 18, 2022) and SPR22/2363 Determination of Supervisor of Records (November 1, 2022). In my November 1st determination, I found it unclear if the Department provided all responsive records and ordered the Department to provide a further response. On November 15, 2022, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2636, was opened as a result. 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

Lieutenant Paul Cotter SPR22/2636 Page 2 December 1, 2022 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. 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. The Department’s November 15th response In its November 15, 2022 response, the Department stated “[t]he request for clarification appears to relate to Request Number 3 submitted by Ms. Ortiz.” The Department clarified its responses to parts 1 and 2 of the request stating, “[t]he City of Lynn has produced all documents in its possession responsive to Requests 1 and 2.” The Department further explained its responses to part 4 of the request stating that, “[t]here exists no documents responsive to Request Number 4 as the investigation was closed as of the date the request was submitted to the City of Lynn Police Department [.]” The Department further clarified its understanding of part 3 of the request stating the following: To date, Ms. Ortiz has not sought these additional records that relate to the February 25th request but are not responsive to that same request. Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the basis of Ms. Ortiz’s appeal is. Ms. Ortiz 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Ms. Ortiz may wish to clarify part 3 of the request to the Department and/or her specific objections to the Department’s response. Ms. Ortiz is also reminded that an appeal to this office must be filed within ninety calendar days of the date of the request letter, or within ninety calendar days of the date of a

Lieutenant Paul Cotter SPR22/2636 Page 3 December 1, 2022 written response from the record custodian. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(e). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz