James P. Ryan v. Essex County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20241792)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 1, 2024 SPR24/1792 Gretchen Grosky Public Information Officer Essex County Sheriff’s Department 20 Manning Avenue P. O. Box 807 Middleton, MA 01949 Dear Ms. Grosky: I have received the petition of James Ryan appealing the response of the Essex County Sheriff’s Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 9, 2023, Mr. Ryan requested “…a visitor’s list for [an identified individual] for the first week in September 2004.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR23/3105 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 3, 2024); SPR24/0005 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2024); SPR24/0217 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 6, 2024); and SPR24/1305 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 10, 2024). In my May 10th determination, I learned that the Department provided a further response on May 2, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1792, 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). 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

Gretchen Grosky SPR24/1792 Page 2 July 1, 2024 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 Department’s May 2nd Response On May 2, 2024, the Department stated, “[w]ithout waiving any rights, objections, and/or defenses, all of which are expressly reserved herein in full, and without precedent to future requests, the Department responds as follows. As to [Mr. Ryan’s] first question, Department representatives conducted a diligent search and are unable to locate any records with either [identified individuals]. While the Department understands [Mr. Ryan’s] contention that [he] visited [his] father, the requested records are from twenty years ago and the remaining records do not include those names. As to [Mr. Ryan’s] second question, I am advised that the Department representatives searched for the requested documents and the Department does not possess any responsive documents. I refer [Mr. Ryan] to the Public Records Officers for the arresting agency.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Ryan states, “[t]he Essex County Sheriff’s Department stated that they have reviewed the documents on my Dad’s incarcerations. I need to have copies of those files… As I’ve written before on this matter, the Employees reviewed the Files according to their letter. I need the copies of the redacted Files because I know I visited my Dad daily in Lawrence for two months…” Public Records Requests; Petitions to Supervisor of Records In his November 9th request, Mr. Ryan sought “…a visitor’s list for [an identified individual] for the first week in September 2004.” However, in his appeal petition, Mr. Ryan indicated that “[t]he [Department] stated that they have reviewed the documents on my Dad’s incarcerations. I need to have copies of those files…” Mr. Ryan is reminded that a requestor may petition the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) only after a written request has been made to the records access officer (RAO) of the governmental entity that creates or receives the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.01(1). Additionally, the written request must reasonably describe the public records sought. Id. Whereas the request for subsequent records was not made directly to the Department’s RAO, I decline to opine on that matter. If Mr. Ryan would like to obtain copies of these records, Mr. Ryan is advised that he should make a separate public records request to the

Gretchen Grosky SPR24/1792 Page 3 July 1, 2024 Department’s RAO. Mr. Ryan may then appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Further Appeal Additionally, in his appeal petition, Mr. Ryan states “. . . I’ve also asked for not just their copies, but also a copy of [a named individual]’s arrest records.” Where the November 9th request sought only an identified individual’s visitor’s list, I decline to opine on this matter. If Mr. Ryan made a separate request for arrest records and is unsatisfied with the response, he may file an appeal with this office within 90 days. Conclusion Where the Department does not possess any additional records responsive to the November 9th request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Ryan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Ryan Jordan Elizabeth Mitchell, Esq.