Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250017)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2025 SPR25/0017 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher appealing the response of the Taunton 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 November 29, 2024, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested, “any police reports related to [an identified individual]. Please limit this request to documents between Jan 1, 2019 and the date the search is conducted. Please deliver all documents electronically via email.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3448 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 3, 2025). In my January 3rd determination, I learned that Ms. Rindlisbacher withdrew her appeal based upon the Department agreeing to provide a response. The Department responded on January 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0017, 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. 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0017 Page 2 January 16, 2025 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 Department’s January 2nd Response In its January 2, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Police Department is not in possession of any responsive public record. To the extent any record may fall within the scope of your request, the same would be exempt from public disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, sec. 7(26)(a), which applies to records that are ‘specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute’.” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Rindlisbacher asserts, “I would like the police report for this incident and I think it is in the public interest to view the police report for this incident. I would also like all other records responsive to my request, which I believe are in the public interest to view.” Based on Ms. Rindlisbacher’s claim, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses any records responsive to her request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). To the extent that responsive records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Further, the Department is advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Rindlisbacher with a response to the request, provided 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0017 Page 3 January 16, 2025 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Rindlisbacher 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: Emma Rindlisbacher