Amadi Sosa v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20240963)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 11, 2024 SPR24/0963 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. 2nd Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield – Law Department Public Records Division 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Amadi Sosa appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 8, 2023, Mr. Sosa requested, among other items, the following: Any/all report(s), witness interview(s), email(s), audio record of any interviews, transcripts pertaining to file #10-364-AR. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/0651 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 15, 2024). In my March 15th determination, I ordered the City to provide a further response to the request. Subsequently, the City responded on March 13, 2024, citing Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and G. L. c. 119, § 60A for withholding the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Status of the 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). Accordingly, Mr. Sosa’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR24/0963 Page 2 April 11, 2024 It is unclear if Mr. Sosa may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Sosa a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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. 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 City’s March 13th Response In its March 13, 2024 response, the City cites Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 119, § 60A. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR24/0963 Page 3 April 11, 2024 records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its March 13th response, the City cites G. L. c. 119, § 60A, which provides in pertinent part: The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney; provided further, that nothing herein shall be construed to provide access to privileged or confidential communications and information; and provided further, that said protections shall be construed to include information and communications entered at the indictment. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Under the statute cited above, the City argues that “arrest report 10-364-AR is clearly marked ‘Juvenile.’ [The individual named in the report] was 15 years old at the time of his arrest with a Date of Birth of February 28, 1994.” Additionally, the City explains that “the City maintains its position that the requested records are juvenile records and must not be released in response to a public records request.” Based on the City’s March 13th response, it is unclear how the responsive records are the type contemplated under G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Specifically, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute “records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty- nine,” as required by the statute. The City must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Sosa with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR24/0963 Page 4 April 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Amadi Sosa