Jeff Raymond v. Dedham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232590)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 22, 2023 SPR23/2590 Michael d’Entremont Chief of Police Dedham Police Department 26 Bryant Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Chief d’Entremont: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Dedham Police Department (Department) to his requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 13, 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 Michael d’Entremont SPR23/2590 Page 2 November 22, 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. In addition, on April 20, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and communications in regard to certain lawsuits and public records.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1] Copies of any responsive communications sent or received by municipal employees and/or officers and/or employees of the police department between the dates of May 1, 2022 and April 14, 2023 that make reference to and/or cite, in whole or in part, the following sentences (as they appear in said records, designated with quotation marks (example: “Public Records”), broadly construed.  “the Department intends to withhold the records in their entirety pursuant to 950 CMR 32.08(2)”  “the responsive records in question are the subjects of dispute in active litigation”  “I support thereof, it is the opinion of the Department” and/or “In support thereof, it is the opinion of the Department” [2] Copies of any responsive communications sent or received by municipal employees and/or officers and/or employees of the police department between the dates of May 1, 2022 and April 14, 2023 that make reference to and/or cite, in whole or in part, the following Massachusetts court cases, broadly construed.  Hovsepian, Scott et al. v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, (also known as Hovsepian, or Hovsepian v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, or Hovsepian v. POST, or similar constructions) Suffolk Superior Court Docket no.2284 CV 00906  New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc., and Daniel Gilbert v. Massachusetts Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (also known as MEBPA v. POST or similar constructions), Suffolk Superior Court Docket no. 2384 CV 00500 [3] Copies of any responsive communications sent or received by municipal employees and/or officers and/or employees of the police department between the dates of May 1, 2022 and April 14, 2023 that make reference to and/or cite, in

Chief Michael d’Entremont SPR23/2590 Page 3 November 22, 2023 whole or in part, the following appeal determinations published by the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Public Records Office (“Appeal Determinations”), broadly construed.  SPR20221301 (also known as SPR22/1301) (reconsideration; Lynn, City of - Police Department, Custodian)  SPR20221373 (also known as SPR22/1373) (reconsideration; Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, Custodian) Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR23/1158 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 14, 2023); SPR23/1567 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 21, 2023); SPR23/1816 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 21, 2023) and SPR23/2087 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 18, 2023). In my September 18th determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden to redact the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. On September 29, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2590, 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. Attorney 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 September 29th response In its September 29, 2023 response, the Department asserts that “Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law permits it to redact limited disciplinary information from the officer- specific- information submitted to POST...” The Department further claims that “release of police officers disciplinary information is currently the subject of the ongoing litigation in the case of Eric Mack v. Office of the District Attorney of the Bristol County, SJC-13468.”

Chief Michael d’Entremont SPR23/2590 Page 4 November 22, 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