← Back to Search
Connor J. Powers v. Dedham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242802)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 10-10-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20242802 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Connor J. Powers concerning records held by Dedham, Town of - Police Department, opened 10-10-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20242802
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Connor J. Powers
- Custodian
- Dedham, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 10-10-2024
- Date Closed
- 10-22-2024
- Response Provided Date
- 10-23-2024
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 1 Business Day
- 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 22, 2024 SPR24/2802 Officer Ron Pucci Records Access Officer Dedham Police Department 600 High Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Officer Pucci: I have received the petition of Connor Powers appealing the response of the Dedham 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 24, 2024, Mr. Powers requested, “any and all records related to the traffic stop of [a named individual] by Detective … on 8/30/2024.” The Department responded on September 25, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Powers petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2802, 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. 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. 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 Officer Ron Pucci SPR24/2802 Page 2 October 22, 2024 The Department’s September 25th Response In its September 25, 2024 response, the Department states, “I was informed . . . that the matter was under investigation.” The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; 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). Consequently, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department has not cited an exemption for withholding or redacting the responsive records. The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Powers 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Connor Powers