Makalah Lacy v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241582)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 6, 2024 SPR24/1582 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Makalah Lacy appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 16, 2024, Ms. Lacy requested: …access to and copies of records related to [a specified interaction] with Boston Police Department officers on March 8, [2021], as well as related events on March 3, [2021]. Specifically… [1] Confirmation whether the department claims that no officers were present with [an identified individual] at the Boston Medical Center Hospital or in the EMS vehicle on March 8, [2021;] [2] Any available body camera footage from all officers who were present with [an identified individual] during transport to the Boston Medical Center Hospital and while at the hospital on March 8, [2021], especially during the times when [this identified individual] was handcuffed and detailed; [3] [T]he names of all Boston police officers who were with [an identified individual] at Boston Medical Center Hospital and in the EMS vehicle on March 8; [4] [A]ll unredacted transcripts of police communications (including 911 and police dispatch transcripts) from March 8 and March 3, 2021; [5] A clear statement regarding the absence of body camera footage after [an identified individual] arrival at the hospital and the reasons for any such gaps in recording[; and] [6] Any police reports or documents indicating [an identified individual’s] release from detainment from the Boston Medical Center Hospital on March 8, [2021]. Please note … I have reviewed the body camera footage provided to me, which shows officers taking [an identified individual] to the EMS vehicle and then stops 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. SPR24/1582 Page 2 June 6, 2024 abruptly. The lack of continuous footage raises concerns about the completeness and transparency of the records. The City responded on April 30, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Lacy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1582, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on May 28, 2024, the City provided a supplemental response. 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. Att’y 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 April 30th and May 28th responses In its April 30, 2024 response, the City asserted, “[d]ue to the nature of your request, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” In its May 28, 2024 response, the City asserted, “I have alerted representatives from the department regarding this matter in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding your public records request. I will provide an update to you once additional information is provided to me by the department.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Lacy states, “[d]espite the statutory deadline, the City has not produced the requested records…. An extension request was made, but the extended deadline has also passed without compliance…. The lack of response not only hinders my ability to pursue legal and personal recourse but also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that the Massachusetts Public Record Law is designed to uphold.”

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1582 Page 3 June 6, 2024 Timeliness in providing records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Lacy submitted her request on April 16, 2024, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. 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). 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); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Lacy 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Lacy may appeal the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Makalah Lacy