← Back to Search
Jeff Raymond v. Marion, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231599)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency must provide records · Filed 07-12-2023
ClosedTime PetitionPetitioner Won
SPR 20231599 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Jeff Raymond concerning records held by Marion, Town of - Police Department, opened 07-12-2023. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency must provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20231599
- Case Type
- Time Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Jeff Raymond
- Custodian
- Marion, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 07-12-2023
- Date Closed
- 07-17-2023
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 SPR23/1599 Lauren Roberts Records Access Officer Marion Police Department 550 Mill Street P. O. Box 636 Marion, MA 02738 Dear Ms. Roberts: On July 12, 2023, this office received your petition on behalf of the Marion Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. On April 16, 2023, Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, requested the following records: [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 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 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 Lauren Roberts SPR23/1599 Page 2 July 17, 2023 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. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1282 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2023). In my June 28th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request. Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. Lauren Roberts SPR23/1599 Page 3 July 17, 2023 The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its July 12th petition, the Department states, “[t]his request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of our department due to the magnitude of the request and the efforts necessary to undertake such a request. Therefore, we respectfully request an extension of up to ten (10) business days.” I find that in light of the capacity of the Department to produce the records without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Department an extension of 10 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Raymond’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 10 business days as described above. Please note, Mr. Raymond has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond