MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Tasheena M. Davis, Esq. v. Mansfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20232531)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 10-24-2023

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20232531 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Tasheena M. Davis, Esq. concerning records held by Mansfield, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 10-24-2023. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20232531
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Tasheena M. Davis, Esq.
Custodian
Mansfield, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
10-24-2023
Date Closed
11-07-2023

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 November 7, 2023 SPR23/2531 Marianne Staples Records Access Officer Town of Mansfield 6 Park Row Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Ms. Staples: I have received the petition of Attorney Tasheena M. Davis, of Lawyers for Civil Rights, appealing the response of the Town of Mansfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 11, 2023, Patrick DeRosier referred to a specific incident and requested “the names of the four officers who ... entered [a specified] apartment to conduct the apprehension and the related body-cam footage of each officer and its entirety in their authentic and original state of the day and time in question.” The Town responded on August 29, 2023, denying the request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney Davis appealed on behalf of Mr. DeRosier, and this case 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. 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

Marianne Staples SPR23/2531 Page 2 November 7, 2023 The Town August 29th Response In its August 29, 2023 response, the Town states the following: The [Town] intends to deny [Mr. DeRosier’s] request and would ask the SPR to deny any appeal on the grounds that 950 CMR 32.08 shall not apply to records in which an individual, or a representative of the individual, has a unique right of access to the record through statutory, regulatory, judicial or other applicable means. The Town is advised that, under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Town is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Additionally, it is unclear from the Town’s response which specific records the Town intends to withhold. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Attorney Davis with a response to the request, provided 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tasheena M. Davis, Esq.