Jeff Raymond v. Peabody, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231960)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 25, 2023 SPR23/1960 Captain Douglas Marcus Peabody Police Department 6 Allens Way Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Captain Marcus: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Peabody 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 15, 2023, Mr. Raymond 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 for the earlier-mentioned database. . . [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST 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

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR23/1960 Page 2 August 25, 2023 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 appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR23/1349 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2023) and SPR23/1611 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 21, 2023). In my July 21st determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to clarify how the requested records can be redacted and withheld pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on August 1, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1960, 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 August 1st Response In its August 1, 2023 response, the Department provided a POST spreadsheet.

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR23/1960 Page 3 August 25, 2023 Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Raymond states, “[t]his is the same redacted sheet you sent me on 27 June and was the subject of 1611. Can you please send the original Excel spreadsheets as requested in April?” Based on Ms. Raymond’s claim, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to the 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). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether the requested records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond