Tom Shiple v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20240654)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 15, 2024 SPR24/0654 William J. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Tom Shiple appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 25, 2024, Mr. Shiple requested, “... the data on all Uniform Citations issued during the ten years 2014-2023, including but not limited to written warnings, and including all fields not exempt from disclosure, for the following municipal police departments: Acton, Arlington, Belmont, Lexington, Wellesley, and Winchester.” MassDOT responded on January 26, 2024. Unsatisfied with MassDOT’s response, Mr. Shiple petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0654, 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. 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

William J. Doyle. Esq. SPR24/0654 Page 2 March 15, 2024 MassDOT’s January 26th Response In its January 26, 2024 response, MassDOT stated, “[b]elow is a link to some of the records responsive to your request. It requires a massive amount of work and time to compile records such as those you have requested, as there are approximately 500,000 citations received by us each year. In an effort to reduce the costs to you, we have been able to compile data that was previously released for other requests, as follows: There are two text files which contain the citations for all municipalities, beginning with 10/1/2014 - 2019. The files cannot be exported as Excel spreadsheets due to the row-number limitations in Excel. The remaining files represent 2020, 2021, and 2022. If you need 2023, let us know and we can begin the process to compile those records.” Current appeal In his January 29, 2024 appeal, Mr. Shiple identified the following missing information: 1. For the 2014-2019 files, there are no column headers. 2. For 2014-2017, there are 1,000-4,000 WARNINGs a year. For 2018-2019, this jumps to 138,000-192,000 per year. It appears that 2014-2017 is missing a substantial number of WARNING records. 3. For Lexington in particular, for 2014-2017, there are zero WARNINGs. For 2018 there is one, and for 2019 there are two. It appears that WARNINGs are missing for Lexington for all years 2014-2019. 4. Continuing with the previous point: I received the 2020 Uniform Citation data from the Lexington Police Department. By comparing this data to the MassDOT data, I can see that the MassDOT data is missing WARNING records. A specific example of this is citation # T2121104 issued on 1/3/2020, which is in the Lexington PD records, but not the MassDOT records. 5. For all years, I would like the zip code of the offender. This level of detail does not personally identify the offender, and is important to distinguish residents of a municipality, versus passers-through. 6. In answer to your inquiry, yes, I would like the 2023 data as well. . . . In light of the above, it is unclear if MassDOT possesses any additional 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, MassDOT must clarify whether additional records exist.

William J. Doyle. Esq. SPR24/0654 Page 3 March 15, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, MassDOT is ordered to provide Mr. Shiple 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. Mr. Shiple may appeal the substantive nature of MassDOT’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Shiple