Laura H. Ortiz v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20242817)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 25, 2024 SPR24/2817 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz 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 June 24, 2024, Ms. Ortiz requested the following records for the dates January 1, 2024 through June 24, 2024: [1] Copies of any Narcotic Search Warrants executed by Boston Police Department, without any arrest and/or without drugs being found on the civilian the search warrant was executed against … [;] [2] Copies of any records for any cash seized (as a civil forfeiture) during the execution of the above Narcotics Search Warrants requested in Part 1, that identify the total amount of cash seized and date of seizure (we’re not sure how to describe this record)[.] The City provided a response on July 29, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2817, 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/2817 Page 2 October 25, 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 City’s July 29th Response In its July 29, 2024 response, the City informed Ms. Ortiz that her request was “… excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the [Public Records Law].” In support of this contention, the City cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019), stating: In accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision described above, whereas you seek “all information and documents” or “any and all communications, documents, e-mails, text messages, voice recordings, and other information or tangible evidence” “pertaining” to elections for example, it is unclear with “sufficient particularity” which records you seek. Thus, your request “calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘[regarding]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla, at 2. Current Appeal In her October 11, 2024 petition to this office, Ms. Ortiz objected to the City’s response, stating “… [the request] was a limited scope, the records EXIST, they are already in our preferred public records information format, so the request was not a burden … nor did [the City’s] RAO provide any suggestions for reasonable modifications of our scope nor any assistance … despite us asking for it under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) …” On October 15, 2024, the City contacted Ms. Ortiz via email to inform her that her request was undergoing further review, and an update would be provided to her when additional information became available. This office encourages Ms. Ortiz and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate the provision of any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/2817 Page 3 October 25, 2024 produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, in light of the City’s October 15th response, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ortiz with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Ortiz may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz Christine O’Donnell, Esq.