Yisbert Lara v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20241574)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 6, 2024 SPR24/1574 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Yisbert Lara appealing the response of the Boston 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 4, 2024, Mr. Lara requested, “… the total cost to obtain only the ‘1992 pages of documents [regarding the murder of an identified individual]’ that are in possession of the BPD.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/1402 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 13, 2024). In my May 13th determination, it was my understanding that the Department provided Mr. Lara with a response dated May 9, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Lara petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1574, 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 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1574 Page 2 June 6, 2024 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 Department’s May 9th Response On May 9, 2024, the Department stated, “[p]lease bear in mind that our office… does not recognize this as a formal request for records but rather an inquiry regarding a closed request which our office is not required to answer if closed with no pending appeal or order by the Supervisor of Records to respond further. However, if [Mr. Lara] was to submit a new request, based on the new records laws a rough calculation of approximately seven-hundred fifty dollars ($750) was determined as the cost to fulfill such a request; as we estimated around 30 hours’ worth of labor to review and redact all responsive records at a rate of, but not exceeding, $25 per hour.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Lara states, “[the Department] response is wrong by not recognized my PRR as a ‘formal request’ because I specifically informed them that it was a PRR… The only reason why [the Department] did not want to recognize my PRR as a formal request is because they know that they failed to respond within 10 business days, and they have to provide the request documents without cost. By [the Department] requesting me to file a new request is because it will restart the time (i.e., 10 business days) in order for them to charge me.” Unclear Appeal Based on the foregoing, the basis of Mr. Lara’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Lara is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). In this case, where Mr. Lara made an inquiry about the cost of obtaining records in his March 20, 2024 correspondence, and has been provided with a response regarding that inquiry, I find that the basis of Mr. Lara’s appeal is unclear. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Lara wishes to submit a public records request to the Department and is unsatisfied with the response, he may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1574 Page 3 June 6, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Yisbert Lara