Devon A. DeWolf v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20243329)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2024 SPR24/3329 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 Devon A. DeWolf 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 October 29, 2024, Mr. DeWolf requested the following records regarding the City’s missing persons’ cases statistics from 1/01/2020-10/01/2024 (demographics including race, gender, age): [1] Overview of all Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics (Boston); [2] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as Black (Boston); [3] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as female (Boston); [4] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as 25 years of age or younger (Boston). On October 29, 2024, the City acknowledged the request and provided a reference number R004430-102924 for tracking purposes. On November 74, 2024, the City sent Mr. DeWolf an email asking for clarification on his request. On November 11, 2024, Mr. DeWolf provided the City with the clarification needed. In his November 11th email to the City, Mr. DeWolf states: [1] I would be looking for something closer to interpretation B, which would include the following statistics – Boston Missing persons cases statistics from 01/01/2020-10/01/2024. All missing persons data entered into database (active and inactive status) between 01/01//2020-10/01/2024 including: Name; age when went missing; race; biological sex; Database entry date; date of last seen missing status; Database purge/exit date; Condition of person found (deceased or alive); 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. SPR24/3329 Page 2 December 23, 2024 Was AMBER Alert used for individual aged 17 and below (Y/N)[;] [2] Overview of all Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics (Boston); Name; age when went missing; race; biological sex; Database entry date; date of last seen; database purge/exit date (if applicable); Condition of person found (deceased or alive); Was AMBER Alert used for individuals aged 17 and below (Y/N); [3] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as Black (Boston); Name; Race breakdown if applicable (Black, biracial, etc.); age when went missing; biological sex; Database entry date; date of last seen; database purge/exit date (if applicable); Condition of person found (deceased or alive); Was AMBER Alert used for individuals aged 17 and below (Y/N); [4] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as female (Boston); Name; age when went missing; Race; Database entry date; date of last seen; database purge/exit date (if applicable); Condition of person found (deceased or alive); Was AMBER Alert used for individuals aged 17 and below (Y/N); and, [5] Current Active Missing Persons Case statistics of individuals categorized as 25 years of age or younger (Boston); Name; age when went missing; biological sex; Database entry date; date of last seen; database purge/exit date (if applicable); Condition of person found (deceased or alive); Was AMBER Alert used for individuals aged 17 and below (Y/N). On November 13, 2024, the City provided Mr. DeWolf with a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. DeWolf petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3329, 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. See 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/3329 Page 3 December 23, 2024 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 November 13th Response In its November 13, 2024 response, the City states, “[w]e need more time to provide a response based on the revised request. [We] are going to update the due date to an additional 15 additional business days.” Current appeal In his December 11, 2024 petition, Mr. DeWolf states, “… [a]fter initial communication and clarification about the [request], I was told that they needed to extend the response to 15 business days. Last week when it hit 15 business days. I emailed [on December 5, 2024] to check in for an update and never heard back. I followed up this week [December 9, 2024] with another email and have still not heard back…” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. DeWolf submitted his request on October 29, 2024, and upon the City’s request, provided clarification on November 11, 2024, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find that the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66,

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/3329 Page 4 December 23, 2024 § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. DeWolf 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. Mr. DeWolf may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Devon A. DeWolf