← Back to Search
Mark Hourihan v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242661)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 09-23-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20242661 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Mark Hourihan concerning records held by Fall River, City of - Police Department, opened 09-23-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20242661
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Mark Hourihan
- Date Opened
- 09-23-2024
- Date Closed
- 10-07-2024
- Response Provided Date
- 10-21-2024
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 9 Business Days
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 7, 2024 SPR24/2661 Amanda Matton Records Clerk Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: I have received the petition of Mark Hourihan, of LiveBoston News, appealing the response of the Fall River 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 September 4, 2024, Mr. Hourihan requested, “... the booking photo and body camera footage of the arrest of [an identified] Fall River Officer in July of 2024.” The Department responded on September 19, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Hourihan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2661, 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 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 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 Amanda Matton SPR24/2661 Page 2 October 7, 2024 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 September 19th Response In its September 19, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes 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 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Amanda Matton SPR24/2661 Page 3 October 7, 2024 In its response the Department stated, “[t]his law states that all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 209A and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality. We are unable to release report citing the above exemptions.” Based upon the Department’s response, it is unclear how all the requested records are the type restricted under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Further, it is uncertain what types of records the Department possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Department withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the Department must identify what type of record(s) it has in its possession that the Department withheld under Exemption (a). Also, the Department must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Hourihan 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. 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. Mr. Hourihan may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mark Hourihan