Justice Ainooson v. Plymouth County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20240009)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2024 SPR24/0009 Karen Palumbo, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office 166 Main Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Palumbo: I have received the petition of Justice Ainooson appealing the response of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In four separate requests dated November 20, 2023, Mr. Ainooson requested the following records: [1.] a copy of the Staffing Matrix of the Office (this includes but it is not limited to, all officers, legal aids, consultants, secretaries, assistants, attorneys, experts…) for the years of: [2005-2011][.] [2.] ... data of the monetary figure(s) of the amount of money spent on witnesses and informants for (but not limited to) food, bills, pocket money, hotels, cars, housing, clothes, court fees, bail, canteen (when they are incarcerated within the house of corrections and/or department of corrections)/commissary, appliances, cell phones, transportation, child support, recreation, etc. I am requesting the above dat[a] for the years of: [2005-2011][.] [3.] results of the immunity proceedings for [identified individuals] in the matter of Commonwealth v. Justice Ainooson, PLCR2005-00253. [4.] ... the roster(s)/staffing matrix for the Crime Prevention and Control (CPAC) unit and Criminal Investigation Division (CID) that worked within and/or under the Plymouth District Attorney, for the years of: [2005-2011][.] 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

Karen Palumbo, Esq. SPR24/0009 Page 2 January 16, 2024 Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR23/3027; SPR23/3030; SPR23/3031; and SPR23/3032 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 21, 2023). In my previous determination, it was my understanding that the Office provided a further response to Mr. Ainooson on December 18, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Ainooson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0009, was opened as a result. Purpose of request; identity of requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). 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, § l0A(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. 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 Office’s December 18th Response In its December 18, 2023 response, the Office stated, “[Mr. Ainooson is] represented by [a named attorney]. As such, any public records requests should be made by [his] attorney… Any communication with the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office must be made through [his] attorney.”

Karen Palumbo, Esq. SPR24/0009 Page 3 January 16, 2024 Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Ainooson states, “[n]othing within the Public Records law says that if I have an attorney I must go through him (or her) in order to file for and obtain public records, nor does anything within the public records law authorize record’s officer(s) to assert such a claim as a reason for denial.” Possession, Custody, or Control The Office is advised that 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Based on the Office’s December 18th response, it is unclear whether the Office possesses records responsive to Mr. Ainooson’s request. The Office must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Ainooson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of the 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. Ainooson may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Justice Ainooson