Mark Tourville v. Tyngsborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242339)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 30, 2024 SPR24/2339 Shaun M. Woods Deputy Chief Tynsborough Police Department 20 Westford Road Tyngsborough, MA 01879 Dear Deputy Chief Woods: I have received the petition of Mark Tourville appealing the response of the Tyngsborough 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 August 8, 2024, Mr. Tourville requested the “body camera footage of [named officers] … from the Tyngsboro police department, during my illegal apprehension @ . . . Middlesex rd Tyngsboro, ma 01879 on Thursday 07/11/2024 between 5pm- 9pm[.]” The Department responded on August 13, 2024 providing records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Tourville petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2339, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on August 23, 2024. 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 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

Deputy Chief Shaun M. Woods SPR24/2338 Page 2 August 30, 2024 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 August 13th and August 23rd Responses In its August 13, 2024 response, the Department provided records and cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. In its response, the Department stated, “[w]ith respect to [Mr. Tourville’s] request the Department is not producing Body Worn Camera footage due to the fact that the department does not have access to this technology at this time. With respect to [Mr. Tourville’s] request the Department is producing the following public records: Department CAD entry 24-13456 and 24-13465 as well as RMS entry 24- 668-OF. Please be advised, that certain information is being redacted and/or withheld at this time under exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law…” In its August 23, 2024 response, the Department stated, “[o]n August 13, 2024, Mr. Tourville was notified by our Records Access Officer that the Department did not have in its possession or control the records responsive to his request, as the Department does not currently utilize body-worn camera technology. However, in response to his request, Mr. Tourville was provided with copies of the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) record and the incident report from our records management system (RMS).” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Tourville states, “I would like to appeal a police report, by the Tyngsboro, MA police department made against myself on July 11th 2024… I requested body cam footage from the officers. I received a response from the Tyngsboro police department, stating that they did not have access to the body camera footage. At no time did I say they could stop recording. In fact, I asked them to record. Then I asked if I could record audio for my own assurance. They said yes, so I did just that. This happened shortly after their arrival… I would like to appeal this police report (attached), because the officers made 2 false claims that I would like to be redacted. [1.] That I had made threats to hurt others in their presence. [2.] That I resisted arrest.” Upon review of the appeal, it appears the requestor is not objecting to the Department’s claims under Exemptions (a) and (c). Please be advised that in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where the Department does not possess body camera footage responsive to Mr. Tourville’s request, and Mr. Tourville is not taking issue with the redactions on the police report but seeks for information to be redacted, he has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the Department. As such, I find that the basis of Mr. Tourville’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Tourville is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the

Deputy Chief Shaun M. Woods SPR24/2338 Page 3 August 30, 2024 nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mark Tourville