Jeff Raymond v. Hopedale, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232583)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 8, 2023 SPR23/2583 Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. Records Access Officer Hopedale Police Department 70 Hopedale Street Hopedale, MA 01747 Dear Lieutenant Martin: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Hopedale 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 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.... 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 Donald J. Martin, Sr. SPR23/2583 Page 2 November 8, 2023 [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 Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR23/1257 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 26, 2023); SPR23/1524 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (July 17, 2023, August 8, 2023); SPR23/2050 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2023) and SPR23/2271 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 6, 2023). In my October 6th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to redact responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) and ordered the Department to provide a response to Mr. Raymond. Subsequently, the Department responded on October 16, 2023. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond further appealed, 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. The Department’s October 16th Response In its October 16, 2023 response, the Department argues that “the Police Department submits that it has adequately explained the reasons for its invocation of Exemption (c) (G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c)) of the Public Records Law to support the limited redactions made to the provided records under applicable case law.”

Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. SPR23/2583 Page 3 November 8, 2023 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 Mr. Raymond’s records request, these requested records are the subject of a dispute in active litigation. See Eric Mack v. Office of the District Attorney of the Bristol District No. SJC-13468. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond