MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Jeff Raymond v. Gill, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231534)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 07-18-2023

ClosedAppealResolved

SPR 20231534 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Jeff Raymond concerning records held by Gill, Town of - Police Department, opened 07-18-2023. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.

Case Details

Case Number
20231534
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Recon
Status
Closed
Requester
Jeff Raymond
Custodian
Gill, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
07-18-2023
Date Closed
08-04-2023
Date Request Submitted
04-10-2023
Recon Opened
07-18-2023
Recon Closed
08-04-2023

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2023 SPR23/1534 Christopher J. Redmond Chief of Police Gill Police Department 196B Main Road Gill, MA 01354 Dear Chief Redmond: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Gill Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 10, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format 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 Christopher J. Redmond SPR23/1534 Page 2 July 17, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission.”…. [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/1171 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 8, 2023). In my June 8th determination, I directed the Department to identify the records in its possession. On June 27, 2023, the Department provided a further response. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1534, 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. The Department’s June 27th response In the Department’s June 27, 2023 response, it indicated that it was withholding records

Chief Christopher J. Redmond SPR23/1534 Page 3 July 17, 2023 responsive to Items 1, 2, and 5 of the April 10th request. The Department further indicated that it had no records responsive to Items 3 and 4 of the April 10th request and provided responsive records for Item 6 of the request. Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. With respect to Items 1, 2, and 5, these requested records are the subjects of a dispute in active litigation. See Hovsepian, Scott et al. v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Suffolk Superior Court Docket No.2284CV00906). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on Items 1, 2, and 5 at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Regarding Items 3 and 4 of the request, the Department indicated that it had no responsive records. Regarding 6 of the request, the Department indicated that it has produced all the responsive records. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Consequently, the Department has no duty to create records responsive to the requests numbered 3 and 4. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Raymond is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c).

Chief Christopher J. Redmond SPR23/1534 Page 4 July 17, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond